In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s “apparent” defeat—there are those who still will not accept it, demanding recounts in several states—there has been “theories” about why this occurred, and of course a great many of them have set forward by persons with a distinctly “personal” agenda. One suspects that if Clinton had been a conservative Republican, the “discussion” in the media would more likely have centered around the “issues”; but because the Democratic Party is identified with gender politics, that is mostly the “issue.” Naturally, men are expected to take all the charges stoically, not whispering a word in defense of themselves as a group or pointing out discrepancies of logic or facts.
Sometimes the theories of the advocates so obviously ignores reality that it isn’t even worth discussing. There is one Alison Booth, a professor of economics at the Australian National University, who posted something about how gender roles “evolved,” but are no longer in effect. “Plow”—meaning agriculture—based “culture” established that males must do the “hard,” physical labor (plowing the fields), while women were left at home to see to the less physically onerous tasks. Of course this is completely separate from “intelligence,” such as inventing plows in the first place, which males and females have the equal capacities of doing, or so we ought to believe, way back in the earliest days of civilization.
Because we live in a society where many areas of employment have more to do with using one’s mind, like data entry, using a cash register, punching a few buttons, or being an “artist,” being “equal” has little to do with the world we observe around us—you know, the one with buildings, roads, sewage systems, power plants, computers and whatnot. None of that matters in the “post-industrial world in which the bargaining power of women is again changing (albeit with the assistance of victim politics and law). In many societies we are moving towards greater equality and cooperation between the sexes. Will we eventually see, everywhere on our planet, an equalization in the bargaining power of men and women? Let us hope our descendants do not have to wait too much longer before finding out that this is indeed the case.”
Until then, that depends on how much infrastructure you are willing to allow to fall apart, because none of that really matters; women can just use their superior brain power to conjure-up the replacements. In the odd chance that magic doesn’t work, what will women “bargain” with men with then, males being only good for “fixing cars and killing bugs” as a female college student told me years ago. Their “superior” intelligence?
Sometimes “superior intelligence” is less in evidence than the need to “feel good about feeling bad.” There is a “online publishing” website called Medium, which was established in 2012. The only reason why I know anything about it is because links to several blog posts on it appeared in my email inbox against my will, two written by black females, another by a white female, and all of them make me feel so “glad” that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the election, being a “role model” for people like this. The one written by a white female, apparently just out of high school, went on a rant about how “girls” and women are perceived in society, typical of people who believe they are “entitled” to things without “earning” them, naturally having very little relevance in reality. “Of course” Clinton lost because of “stereotypes” of women, and misogyny and sexism; and it all turned her stomach “on fire.” The comments section was full of similar commiserations and “love”; I decided to add my own “comment” on the proceedings:
If you understood Bernie Sanders supporters like myself who chose not to vote for either Clinton or Trump, you would understand something else that should have turned your stomach on “fire” even more: How people like yourself could possibly have felt that someone as personally corrupt and unethical as Clinton — something revealed almost daily that the pro-Clinton media chose to ignore or regard as “irrelevant” — was “entitled” to the presidency merely because she was a woman. Sanders not only didn’t have a fraction of the “baggage” that Clinton had, but he had something else even more important: principles. RealClearPolitics showed that even at the end of primary season, Sanders polled well ahead of Clinton against Trump, suggesting that independents and unhappy Republicans were more likely to support Sanders than Clinton. A Gravis Marketing poll taking two days before the election showed a preference for Sanders by a 56 to 44 lead over Trump. That fact that so many people like yourself felt that the corrupt and perjury-ridden Clinton was “entitled” to the presidency is what sets a fire in my “belly.”
I doubt that I got much “love” for that statement.
One of the posts written by a black woman, named Lauren Parker, was entitled “If Boys Will Be Boys, Why Don’t We Kill Boys”? Given that black males are killed (mainly by each other) at a rate 23 times the rate of white women and (ten times the rate of black women), the question is who is “we”? Well, women, and more specifically, self-obsessed, “badass” women like herself. First she goes on a rant about how tough it is to be a woman—especially a black woman—and talks about the alleged “rape culture” she is forced to endure. She continues on:
“This poses an important question: if “boys will be boys” and “boys” think it’s acceptable to rape people or to try to impress people by making them think they rape people, why wouldn’t we just kill boys?
“Go with me here”—do we have to?—“women have to live defensively (for those in world mostly shaped by paranoia and misandry)…So if it’s the fault of women that Pissbaby and assorted other ‘boys’ feel entitled to harass us (like this person isn’t engaging in despicable verbal violence against us?) shouldn’t we just do a control kill? If you want women to take responsibility of the situation, isn’t this the most effective way to do so?”
Parker goes on with this line of thinking, and we are not quite certain she is being “ironic”: “We do it with deer, raccoon, rats and other vermin. And the phrasing ‘boys will be boys’ is clearly some sort of internalized self-hatred where you have reduced yourselves to bestial, criminal impulse, why wouldn’t we profile you and exterminate those of you that are a harm to yourself and others?”
Is she talking about all males? Probably. Of course, she might address the issue of violence—both verbal and physical—committed by women like herself, but that’s to be “excused” as defensive when it isn’t about “respect.” “I can actually answer this question: because as much as you all complain about how you have it so tough, the humanity of White Men is never questioned or challenged. People are mean to you, sure, but you’re still people. That’s why we haven’t organized a massive uprising against you involving drinking your blood and casting every John Updike novel into the sea. Even in cases of class, the humanity of poor White Men remains intact in a way that isn’t present in other marginalized groups.”
Can I just say that I have no idea what she just said? OK, so the “humanity of white men is never questioned.” What does that have to do with black men? Or am I wrong and she is talking just about white men? Well, it must be black men because she goes on to say something that seems to only to apply to black football players: “So ‘boys,’ here’s the real talk, it’s not acceptable to rape women. It’s not acceptable to grab them by their pussy. It’s not acceptable to talk about grabbing them by their pussies. It’s okay for you to lose your job if you do these things.” Who is it that thinks that this is “OK”? Very few, but then it isn’t for those wallowing in their “victimhood,” that just won’t do.
Parker ends this post by not doing herself any “favors” by “confirming” ugly racial stereotypes about black males by warning “If you cannot meet this incredibly low standard of human decency, you might consider what happens to other types of overwhelming and toxic infestations.” Of course, she might consider the fact that black women are not viewed much better by those who look at the world through a racial prism.
The other post written by a black woman, who says she makes “music and magic,” was entitled “Reclaiming My Power from White Women,” which seemingly starts off as a rant against the hypocrisy of white women who expect black women to support them because of the “sisterhood,” with little benefit. She by ticks-off incidents in her youth in a mostly white town where she made “friends” with white girls at an early age, but as they grew older, the white friends drifted away, apparently due to “societal” pressure and racial stereotypes. She tells us that “For me, notions of girl power and sisterhood have always come with a caveat from white women: don’t make us too uncomfortable or we’ll revoke your invitation. I learned to adapt. I’d bite my tongue. I’d hide my shine. I’d downplay my good grades and the things that came naturally to me. I learned to repress what I wanted, what I needed, and what I ‘really’ thought. I’ve been unlearning these lessons for the better part of the last decade.”
The writer notes that Trump won 53 percent of the white female vote, and she isn’t “surprised” that happened, because she has “discovered” that white feminists don’t necessarily share the same concerns as “women of color.” Women of color were expected to “defer” to white women’s “sensitivities” on the matter of racism. “I watched as conversations started by women of color got shut down by the notion that acknowledging race or racism was inherently hateful. Other times they were dismissed as ‘political,’ or accused of race baiting, or ignored. Conversations regarding systemic racism or implicit bias, particularly when discussed in the context of the group’s dynamics, were frequently responded to with, ‘Don’t spread hatred,’ ‘it’s all love,’ or something equally patronizing. Yet other times aggressive transphobia and reckless rhetoric went completely unchecked by group moderators. This is all happening in progressive, feminist, spaces. White feminist spaces.”
After that, the writer enters into a “plea” for “love” and “understanding” from her white feminist friends. After all, they have a “common enemy,” like men:
“The thing I don’t understand is that as women; don’t you know what it is to be unseen? Don’t you know what it is to get passed over, to feel unsafe, to be made to feel less than by media depictions and rape culture and mansplaining? Don’t you know what it is to feel dehumanized by our system and our culture — to be asked to hold the pain that others have caused you away from where they have to see it? Can’t you see that in the fight to end patriarchy healing separatism and confronting white supremacy within feminism is a necessary and instructive opportunity?”
Like most men, I have no idea where all this comes from, save from raving self-obsession, arrogance, egotism, self-pity. What “media” is she talking about? Women are portrayed in the media either as “superior” or “victims”; which one is it? I think both are inflated out of proportion, and self-denial is a typical reaction to any evidence of relativism. It can be tough being a male in this society too, having to “absorb” all of this.