Since I was not asked if I wanted to work overtime on Friday like everyone else, I had the time and inclination to write a post Thursday evening, but I had to delay its implementation until today because the fast-food establishment I was utilizing the public Wi-Fi of allowed me to watch the Packers-Bears game via a live twitter feed, and because I am a Packer fan I found myself unable to maintain concentration on the project at hand, and Friday was wasted with the usual fruitless business. But it didn’t matter; the Alex Cutter in me has got the best of me. I just can’t stay quiet in the face of hypocrisy if my life depended on it. This shitty weather we’ve been having—already 7.5 inches of rain in the first three weeks of October—hasn’t helped either, all this walking I do.
Now, whether or not I “accept” an objectionable situation is usually beyond my ability to do anything about it in a tangible way—either because I’m far down the totem pole, not taken seriously, or when the objectionable thing is a fait accompli from the start. But it won’t stop me from making an observation or two, being a “journalist” by training. On Wednesday I mentioned the on-going situation regarding a supervisor’s favorite—or rather her friend—provided permanent employment not out of any demonstrated work ethic or respect for good order, but essentially handed it from a form of social nepotism.
Feigned “effort” and “camaraderie” initially has given way to laziness and insubordination, and no one with the authority to stop it either wants to or refuses to see that it is happening. Of course, this wouldn’t be tolerated by the Russian-speakers here; knowing the level of prejudice among some of them, they probably didn’t like her on sight anyways, let alone tolerate her “attitude” for an indefinite period. I don’t like rude and whining talk and behavior myself—especially from people who think they have a “right” to act that way. They probably would have kicked her into our department like they do all the temps they don’t want. Oh wait, isn’t that what happened?
Since there was no question of alienating the Russians by forcing the favorite/friend on them, she naturally wound-up in our department. My lead did eventually have the gumption to tell someone in authority that the favorite was lazy and not generally “liked,” but this was of no consequence. The incidents of insubordination and laziness have only increased. Unlike myself, the lead was surprised to learn that the favorite was being hired fulltime; if this had been any ordinary “temp,” she would have been sent home long ago. But I wasn’t surprised, because it was always clear to me that she was there at the patronage of someone who had the power to push aside all objections, and in so doing is an enabler of her “performance,” or lack thereof.
Which brings me to the word of the day: Power. By November 8, we will discover the true meaning of that word. We will discover the power of corruption, deceit and hypocrisy, from both a presidential candidate and the media that is in full beat-down mode of her opponent to get her elected. Of course the election is being “rigged” by the media; it isn’t a “coincidence” that all that juvenile banter by Donald Trump years ago meant to impress or entertain an impressionable “kid” or an audience that tuned in just to hear that kind of thing (such as the Howard Stern show) that was re-aired to the accompaniment of absurd “pregnant pauses” by Clinton News Network anchors occurred when the election polls showed a dead heat. Former Different Strokes star Dana Plato committed suicide from a drug overdose the day after her appearance on the Stern radio show, and one wonders if the media seeks to complete the job on Trump’s political career. Again, I blame the right-wing voters motivated by their hate in putting someone like Trump in the position of being the Republican candidate. But on the other hand, I hold the media personally responsible for elevating perhaps the most corrupt and deceitful candidate ever for the office of president in the person of Clinton.
To understand the power of the media to engage in gender tyranny, all you have to do is listen to what is said, how it is said and the body language of the people (especially on the Clinton News Network) reporting it. I am at a Laundromat where the television is turned to a local network station; in the past hour I have seen five political ads for political candidates, all female and all Democrats, in which the candidate’s sole primary “qualification” is in addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, and supplying free “rape kits.” One ad featuring Sen. Patty Murray was aired twice; it featured a Native American woman, who frankly looks to be the type you don’t want to have the misfortune of being the intimate partner of when she gets imbibed. This isn’t the media muscling its “power” to make gender politics the only issue that matters in this election year?
How can the media claim to be “objective” when it has not even once brought up Clinton’s extensive past of corruption and perjury that continues to this very day? Is she “immune” from the truth merely because she is female? Just mentioning the WikiLeaks revelations in passing—which reveal that this is an unapologetic Janus-face who will twist logic to unrecognizable extremes in such a “convincing” manner that reality is no longer recognizable in an ethical or moral context—doesn’t make the reporting of this election “objective.”
This media-fueled power to manipulate reality into a monstrous form of fantasy is manifest in many other ways. The broadcast and cable news media used to be the public’s guardian against corruption and malfeasance for the public good. No more. News doesn’t have to be “boring” if ratings are at stake. As Will Farrell’s news reader in Anchorman 2 asked, “Why do we have to tell people what they need to hear? Why don’t we just tell them what they want to hear?” Except in this context it is not “funny.” What does the media think the public “wants” to hear? Certainly not Clinton’s career of corruption and perjury that she will certainly continue doing if she is elected president; after all, we already know that she has no regard for laws, rules or regulations as they apply to her personally or her close associates; her continuing denials indicate that she has no regard for the public, being completely enabled by the media and its complete devotion to seeing her elected president.
In fact, the media thinks the public is more interested in hearing the salacious at service of gender advocacy. This is unprecedented in presidential election history; even in 2008, Barack Obama’s race was never the front page issue (although for most right-wing voters it was a private “concern”) for the media after the Rev. Wright “scandal” cooked up by the Clinton News Network. It has been milking the gender “card” for all that it is worth, both against Trump and for Clinton. It isn’t interested in the “issues” or a rigorous examination of the “merits” of either candidate, because if it did, voters would be equally or more disgusted with Clinton than they are being made to be with Trump. What we are seeing is the “power” of gender politics to outrage women and cow men into submission. Are we seeing the way women with one of their own in the most powerful office in the land rule the country through the media? That all of Clinton’s defects will be “explained” by the “power” of gender politics to shame and intimidate truth-tellers, let alone the opposition party?
Gender political power is manifest in many other ways, of course, even though it is often couched in a curious dichotomy of being both “superior” and a “victim,” and it can range from the ridiculous to the tyrannical and oppressive. Last weekend I wasted two days in the following manner: seeking a pair of lightweight rubber rain boots that was once sold at a local K-Mart that I could wear indoors and out, I walked in one direction to the Tukwila Home Depot, Target and visited all the shoe stores at Southcenter Mall. Then I walked to Kent’s McClendon’s hardware store, then Fred Meyers, Big 5, another Home Depot, another Target, and a Payless Shoes store. While there were rows and rows of boots for women in every imaginable style, size and color, there was almost nothing for men, or even approximating what I was seeking. If this isn’t a demonstration of “power,” I don’t know what is.
But the tyranny of shoes doesn’t stop gender advocates from playing the “victim” even here. In the latest alumni magazine I received, there was a photo showing some hairy legs in high-heels walking up some stairs. The accompanying blurb indicated that these were male students who felt they needed to look ridiculous in order to “assist” in “proving” the feminist “point” about women being “forced” to wear “uncomfortable” shoes for the “benefit” of the male libido, or whatever. However, this ridiculous display only proved the power of gender politics to be as hypocritical as it wants to be. Nobody is “forcing” women to wear anything they don’t want to, and from what I can tell, they wear whatever makes them feel “comfortable,” either in the eyes of others or to themselves, and some people actually even care how they look.
What else? Gender advocates claim that women’s “special” health concerns are ignored by the medical establishment. But as far back as the 1960s the Atlantic Monthly exposed this myth, yet even today it persists despite the fact that virtually every advertisement about health problems and their treatments feature women. This month is Breast Cancer Awareness month; according to a 2006 report, there was $26,000 per incident of mortality from breast cancer for breast cancer research, compared to $2,000 for lung cancer. Not that all that money went to waste; far from being a prolific killer, recovery from breast cancer is far higher than almost any other form of cancer—yet it still has its own “awareness” month, unlike other, more deadly forms of cancer. Even heart disease is often portrayed as a “women’s” problem, with ads featuring local female “celebrities” wearing red clothing to make it solely a gender issue.
The NFL, trying to “improve” its image with non-football fans who only wish to “take down” this male bastion because of its popularity, has its players wear “pink” this month. Women—even the ones who are football fans—likely don’t care about the serious long-term health effects of the players who “entertain” them every Sunday, so why does the NFL force them to engage in this publicity stunt? Well, because the NFL wants to demonstrate its “sensitivity” to women, particularly with the media fascination with gender-related offenses. I wake-up early enough in the morning to listen to ESPN’s “Mike and Mike” radio program. Who is up at 3 AM Pacific Standard Time to listen to this? If anyone, it is probably close to a 100 percent male audience. Yet it airs lengthy local ads about the Seahawks’ “charity of the month,” which as usual has to do with assistance for domestic violence or sexual assault “survivors,” who number in “epidemic” proportions, according to the propagandists. I ask myself, who is the target audience for this ad? It certainly isn’t women. Is the radio station following the dictates of its parent company that it must be “proactive” in showing “sensitivity” to its nonexistent female audience, or is its intent merely to “shame” men? Whatever it’s “purpose,” it is another example of the power of gender politics to frame the “debate”—or more accurately, the lack thereof.
In 1993, one of Clinton’s pet projects after she failed miserably on health care reform, the Violence Against Women Act, was passed and signed into law, and has been the cause of much mischief, not the least because it gives women the power to destroy lives on the mere accusation. It should be noted that this act purposely denied the reality of domestic violence by women, instead making it a gender power politics effort to neuter males. There is “zero” tolerance of men engaging in either physical or verbal abuse, but these acts are not about “size,” but about temperament and opportunity. Violence committed by women—and more often than not “confrontations” are initiated and exacerbated by women—is not addressed at all, not because it doesn’t exist, but because of its basis is misandry.
We see how the power of hypocrisy is played out in the NFL, despite the fact that the rates of domestic violence committed by players is far lower than that of the general public; the Ray Rice case, for one, was manipulated and distorted out of all proportion with reality by the media. We were repeatedly served a super-slo-mo millisecond clip of his fiancé lunging at him at close range with a fist toward his face before Rice responded to this aggression by short right which floored her. But as the female judge who ruled that the NFL had violated Rice’s due process rights noted, his fiancé—who was heavily intoxicated—was also charged with domestic violence by police, the evidence of which you were not shown, when she had struck Rice in the face twice prior to her attempt to strike him a third time, before which he had attempted to move away from her rather than “respond.” In the current case of Josh Brown, yes this man has serious “issues,” but his attempts to address his failures by keeping a journal as part of his “therapy” is being used against him by the media, the law and now the NFL.
I could go and on about the power of women, particularly in the way it is deployed vindictively, tyrannically and oppressively. The case of the Oregon basketball players who were dismissed from the school despite the fact police and prosecutors determined that their accuser had lied. Two male students, one from Brown University and another from Amherst who was reinstated to his school after his accuser was found to have lied, are suing their accusers for making false accusations. In the Amherst case, there was still pressure from campus fanatics to keep him out, and there are those who deny his right to sue the person who defamed him because it “prevents” real victims from coming forward. The infamous Rolling Stone magazine story about an alleged frat party gang rape that was entirely fabricated by the reporter and the alleged victim on the "justification" that fiction is the same as "fact" if the "motivation" is "right" suggests where the real problem rests. All too often, women on college campuses are "persuaded" by sexual assault victim activists to believe that if they had not "intended" to have sex, but did anyways, then they were "raped" and should make an accusation. Of course, suing such false accusers wouldn’t be an issue if the law did its duty and prosecuted them.
And then there are the false and misleading “studies” with their pre-ordained conclusions ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary of these conclusions, the minimizing or “justifying” violence by women, the court system skewed to favor the supposedly “weaker” party. I notice that the windows of the office of the King County Prosecuting Attorney, Family Support Division, located in Kent, are covered with special reflective sheets so that those who work within can see outside without being seen themselves; are they not proud of the “work” they do?
Obviously the media and gender politics-supported candidates have no fear of a backlash from male voters who are tiring of garbage being tossed in their faces endlessly. I am reminded of a trailer to a Russ Meyer movie, described as “An all-out assault on today’s sexual mores, and more. An end-around attack on women’s lib, blasting through the male machismo syndrome, kicking the crap out of convictions, obsessions, hang-ups, the whole bag.” Enough is enough. It is time to stop the power of tyranny wherever it is genderated from.