Donald Trump is back at it
again, this time blaming the World Health Organization for his failure to take
the COVID-19 situation as seriously as it deserved, desperately trying to
deflect attention away from the fact that according to the Worldometers’ statistics,
the daily number of those people who are testing positive for the virus, have
died and are in critical condition not only shows that the virus is far from
peeking in this country, but is expanding at a faster rate. Meanwhile, the Fox
News watchers in Michigan who are making clown shows of themselves protesting
Gov. Grtetchen Whitmer’s “stay at home” order are apparently unaware that
Michigan has the third most deaths from the virus in the country.
The last thing we need is for
ignorant people to play politics with people’s lives. Unfortunately, that is
what is feminists and gender activists are doing. Of course that is hardly a shock the way the
media is currently trumpeting Elizabeth Warren as Joe Biden’s running mate,
having painted himself into that corner. Warren has the same character issues
as Hillary Clinton does, which she has tried to fog over with claims of “sexism.”
Clinton herself probably should have taken the advice of many by just “going
away,” since it appears increasingly likely that she will have to give sworn
testimony in a deposition concerning her email server, although some believe
she will have an attack of “amnesia” rather than blatantly lie once more.
Bernie Sanders is claiming that his campaign was damaged by negative media
coverage, and if you look at the way he was treated in the media and the way
Warren has been, it is clear that the coverage did have a “gendered” angle to
it that Warren benefited from.
That new term being bandied about—“gendered”—is
of course if you are a male can’t be anything good. What is worse is when it is
used to soft-ball the health issues of men. I mentioned the distinguished
British science journal The Lancet in
my last post, which unfortunately sometimes devolves into gender social
engineering which has more to do with opinion than science—to the point where a
line is crossed between what is done in the name of “equality” and what is
morally and ethically reprehensible. In the U.S. and throughout the world a
significant majority of deaths from the COVID-19 are male; in some circles,
this is a matter of “rejoicing” because it allegedly shows that women are
“superior” for having two “X” chromosomes and thus their “superior” genes allow
them allegedly greater disease fighting capacity. Does this mean this mean that
the medical establishment should be more responsive to men’s “peculiar” medical
needs during this pandemic, just as it is of women’s? Not according to this
“editorial” in The Lancet, apparently
written by an indignant gender activist, entitled “The Gendered Dimensions of
COVID-19”:
SARS-CoV-2
does not discriminate, but without careful consideration, the global response
to the COVID-19 pandemic might. Demographic data from small studies are already
informing political decisions and clinical research strategies. Women and men
are affected by COVID-19, but biology and gender norms are shaping the disease
burden. The success of the global response—the ability of both women and men to
survive and recover from the pandemic's effects—will depend on the quality of
evidence informing the response and the extent to which data represent sex and
gender differences.
Sounds “benevolent” enough so far, although I always wonder
why some insist on the politically correct “women and men” when “men and women”
rolls off the tongue so much better. Is it because we should insure that the
health needs of women come first?
Global Health 50/50 tracks
sex-disaggregated infection and mortality COVID-19 data from the 39 most-affected
countries. Some countries, including the UK, the USA, Russia, and Brazil, have
yet to report such data. From those that have, it is unclear whether women or
men are more likely to become infected, but more men are dying from COVID-19.
Adverse outcomes of COVID-19 seem to be associated with comorbidities,
including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease. These
conditions are more prevalent in men and are linked to smoking and drinking
alcohol—behaviours associated with masculine norms.
Misinformation drives so much of the “gendered” discussion.
In fact, contrary to what is said here, many localities in the U.S., such as
New York City, are reporting that as many 60 percent or more of the fatalities
are male. But far more despicable and contemptible is the suggestion that we
should not care all that much about men dying of the virus because of “behaviors associated with masculine norms.” A "sexist" view, anyone?
Women carry
a different kind of burden from COVID-19. Inequities disproportionately affect
their wellbeing and economic resilience during lockdowns. Households are under
strain, but child care, elderly care, and housework typically fall on women.
Concerns over increased domestic violence are growing. With health services
overstretched and charities under-resourced, women's sexual and reproductive
health services, as well as prenatal and postnatal care, are disrupted.
More men are dying, but women are the “real” victims because
of “sexist” social mores that they have to “suffer” from. How does the author
know that women are under “disproportionate” inequities? I bet this person is
working and getting paid for doing “homework” like many women of the author’s
privileged work status. But more contemptible is the suggestion that women are
more in “danger” due to things that have nothing to do with dying of the virus.
Men are dying from the virus in greater numbers, but women are the “true”
victims just by the simple fact of staying home and taking it easy.
The European Association of Science Editors
and other organisations urge all involved in collecting COVID-19 data to follow
guidelines (eg, CONSORT, STROBE) and include age and sex in demographic data.
We echo this call and encourage a gender focus in all research efforts.
Obscuring sex and gender differences in treatment and vaccine development could
result in harm. Incomplete reporting compromises meta-analyses. Addressing the
health needs of men and women equally will help societies recover and resist
future human tragedies.
This paragraph sounds a bit
out-of-place, as if it was either written by another person, or the author just
wanted get personal “feelings” out-of-the-way. The author “encourages”
demographic data to address the health needs of both sexes “equally.” But note
that the editorial omits race as a
data point; in the U.S. there is growing evidence that blacks and Hispanics are
being infected and dying at much higher rates than whites—which just shows you
how “gendered” views are so selfish in their vantage point that racism can
clearly be ascertained, because white feminists can’t stand the “competition,”
and any discussion of racism indicts them as well. Are white women receiving
better health care than minority men (and women) in regard to the virus, not to
mention health care generally? You can’t have that conversation, can you?
The fact that such a
“distinguished” scientific journal would publish a feminist hit piece in the
midst of a pandemic is just more evidence that at least in the “western” world,
it has become “necessary” to build up women by tearing down men—or steering
blame to minorities who supposedly benefit from “affirmative action,” when it
is white women who have benefited from “affirmative action” policies in the
name a phony form of “diversity”; when I see an office wall adorned with the
faces of all the tenant’s employees and only one out of about 150 is a black person
(a woman), it is not just a self-serving claim that an organization strives for
“diversity,” but one of a very limited purpose.
None of this is surprising. In
this “gendered” country, almost every advertisement or billboard concerning
health needs feature women and/or girls. In office environments, “diversity”
almost exclusively refers to women in the workforce, not underrepresented
minorities. Claims of “sexism” seem most prevalent with females with over-active,
easily “hurt” egos; people who work in so-called “low-skill” warehouse or
production work don’t have time for that nonsense—unless of course they are
looking for excuses to “explain” their bad behavior and why people don’t want
to work with them. Most just want to get their hours in and go home—which is why
the celebrity-driven “MeToo” movement doesn’t really resonate that much outside its own
privileged bubble.
It is a fair question to ask
where one draws the line when it comes to anti-male attitudes. Fred Medinger, a
psychotherapist, wrote in the Baltimore
Sun that he
had observed “greeting” cards with such commentary as "Not all
men are annoying. Some are dead," “Men have only two faults: Everything they
say and everything they do" and "Women must be twice as good as men
to be thought half as good. Fortunately this is not difficult." Dr.
Anthony Synnott in Psychology Today
wrote one of the rare articles in that publication that wasn’t about alleged
misogyny, observing how cultural misandry is the accepted “norm”: “T-shirts
say: ‘Women Rule. Men Drool’ and ‘Boys are smelly. Throw rocks at them.’
(An advocacy of violence which would be unconscionable were the sexes
reversed.) ‘Dead Men Don't Rape.’ Nor do most living men, of course. ‘So many
men. So little ammunition.’ ‘What do you call a man with half a brain? Gifted.’”
We can presume that most women
are not into that kind of reverse sexism, or pretend that it is “nothing,” or
we can be allowed to just feel pity for the sad people who compose such hate-filled
drivel. The problem is that this kind of thing, even if it reflects the views
of a small percentage of women, it has an outsized presence in the media, and
an outsized effect on public policy. So much of it has to do building-up women
and tearing down men. When I was in college a female student told me that men
are only good for two things: “fixing cars and killing bugs.” Yet all she had
to do was step outside and look all around her to see that men were good for
somewhat more than that. Men don’t necessarily ask to be “liked” by such people
and even have to live in the same room with them, but they do appreciate
acknowledgement that the world would be a much less comfortable place for women
to live in without them.
Women in other cultures have been frequently portrayed as
oppressed even more by males, usually ignoring the fact that poverty knows no
gender, and males are expected to give their lives for “causes” they are forced
to believe in, especially religious or tribal in nature. Noah Berlatsky The Atlantic writes that “Perhaps most
hideously, men through history have been subject to genocidal, or gendercidal,
violence targeted at them specifically because they are men…gendercide can be
directed against men is much less discussed. One of the worst recent examples
of this was in the Balkans war, where, according to genocide researcher Adam Jones, ‘All of the largest atrocities... target[ed] males almost exclusively, and for
the most part battle-age" males.’ Similarly, in Rwanda according to Judy El-Bushra
(as quoted by Jones) ‘it was principally the men of the targeted populations
who lost their lives or fled to other countries in fear. ... This targeting of
men for slaughter was not confined to adults: boys were similarly decimated,
raising the possibility that the demographic imbalance will continue for
generations. Large numbers of women also lost their lives; however, mutilation
and rape were the principal strategies used against women, and these did not
necessarily result in death.’” Anthony Synnott also points out that black
female authors like Alice Walker and Terry McMillian have found success feeding
the misandric and racial stereotypes held of black males by society in general,
without acknowledging that black women are not exactly “angels” themselves.
Speaking of “angels,” gender
activists like to portray themselves as such, while men are “destroyers” of life.
Yet for every Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who gave their
lives for a moral cause, you are hard pressed to find a female of equal
stature. As I wrote about before, women can harbor and be the cause of some
very morally reprehensible things just from the comfort of their easy lives,
like heiress Cordelia Scaife May. Scaife May—ostensibly an “environmentalist,”
held racist views and funded during her lifetime and afterwards racist anti-immigrant
hate groups which wouldn’t have survived without the hundreds of millions of
dollars her “foundation” flooded them with.
The conversation can get more insane and confusing. In The Guardian, Arwa Mahdawi complains about how in the “MeToo”
world men are more reluctant to deal with women in the workplace, for fear that
something they might say or do is can be interpreted as a gendered offense. Oh, but “most men are perfectly aware of the
difference between a friendly hug and a creepy hug. They are perfectly aware of
what constitutes harassment and what doesn’t.” Oh really? Amanda Rose in Psychology Today tells women to “beware”
of men she calls “benevolent sexists”: “The guy who opens the door,
takes her coat, and gets her a drink could be an undercover benevolent sexist.
The main difference between hostile and benevolent sexists is that benevolent
sexists view women more positively than do hostile sexists. In fact, benevolent
sexists see themselves as holding women in very high regard…
…The problem is that the network of beliefs held by
benevolent sexists conflicts with gender equality…Benevolent sexism has three
main components. Idealized romanticism is the idea that, despite a
man’s worldly accomplishments, he cannot feel complete without the love of his
woman. The idea of complementary gender roles is that women are
kinder, more sensitive, more thoughtful, and more caring than men, which makes
them ideal wives and mothers. Third, protective paternalism stems from
the first two components and suggests that, as the fairer sex, women should be
cherished, protected, provided for, and put on a pedestal.”
And men should know perfectly well what does or doesn’t
offend women? In this world it is damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. But
when belittling men because they are dying of the COVID-19 in greater numbers for
the “gendered” political rationalization that men can’t be “victims,” just “victimizers,”
just shows you how women really do not have any claim to moral superiority.
They are as weak as men in that regard; hypocrisy is not a “virtue” any gender
should “strive” for.
No comments:
Post a Comment