All the world needs are Jada Pinketts to lord over society and provide us "moral" guidance

 

There are those who tell us that society would be better off ruled by a “matriarchy,” with women making all the decisions. I personally don’t see how that would work in the long run if women only make laws and rule for their own benefit and don’t care about facts or evidence when they pass judgment on the male of the species. And what would happen if they don’t have males to beat on anymore? They’ll just find something else to beat on, like maybe each other. I mean, everyone can’t have everything, and if one woman has more than the other (say, a lot more), then there is going to be conflict.  

Two years ago on this blog I looked at Federico Fellini’s 1980 film City of Women; although I think Nights of Cabiria is his best film, City is my favorite Fellini film to watch, and it certainly is worth viewing today as it seems prophetic in the way the world (at least in the West) has been politicized by gender. While the film's view of feminism might have seemed "exaggerated" then, much of it seems all too "familiar" today.

The film plays like a living nightmare for Snaporaz (Marcello Mastroianni) who is just a “regular” guy with what he thinks is “natural” and “normal” male impulses. He follows a mystery woman off a train in the middle of nowhere to a feminist convention where he is warned to leave but remains out of “curiosity,” and is subsequently the object of insults and abuse. As an aside the name "Snaporaz" was a joke term invented by Fellini during the filming of 8 1/2 addressing  Mastroianni's complaints; it is a contraction of "poor man" in the language used, and its appearance in City was thus apt.

At one point Snaporaz muses that if he is supposed to “change,” into “what,” exactly? What these women want? At the convention a woman is lauded for having six husbands who all supposedly are “OK” with the “arrangement.” Everywhere he sees caricatures of men that seem more ridiculous than enlightening. All he knows is that these women are “angry.” As “bad” as his own impulses may be in their eyes, he isn’t that bad, so just what do they want from him that will satisfy them?

After he escapes with the help of a woman whose motives are not clear, but will reappear later in different settings, we find him trying to hitch a ride to the train station with a literal “gang” of teenage girls who have other plans for him. Escaping from them, Snaporaz finds himself in an isolated mansion owned by a professor who is unrepentant about his masculinity and sexual urges, in a town controlled by women whose police are more like Gestapo agents who arrive to announce the “party” is “over” and his home as the last bastion of male “control” is to be demolished the next day. Snaporaz encounters the helpful woman there, and who acts more “feminine” now. To Snaporaz she becomes his “ideal” woman, more so than his wife, who for some reason also happens to be there to torment him about his personal failings.

Eventually Snaporaz finds himself in front of a tribunal of women, who ask him questions he cannot comprehend or answer (“Why were you born a man?”). The “charges” against him is that he “refuses” to answer various questions, refuses to say why he is there, has no ready answers, he never gives, lends or trusts, he can’t offer a woman true sexual satisfaction, he is guilty of self-indulgence and aloofness, he pities himself, he can’t find a way out. He is afraid of decisions, he is guilty of feeling guilty, takes himself too seriously, he is guilty of “maniacal assophilism,” he cannot commit himself to one woman, etc. etc. 

But surprisingly he is “released,” only to allow his curiosity of what punishment awaits the other men who were found “guilty” to get the better of him. He finds that the woman of his “dreams” is only that, to be shot back down to Earth when she reappears dressed as a terrorist armed with a machine gun.

Snaporaz isn’t killed like the other men, he just awakens in the train car where he apparently “dreamt” all of this up. Yet although he just experienced a “dream world,” the visions people have in dreams don’t just come out of nowhere (as analysts of the film miss completely), but it comes from what they have seen and how they "feel" about it, if subconsciously (it is certainly is how Fellini himself must have interpreted radical feminism, since he turns what he sees into the grotesque). Given the portrayal of radical feminism—and it is not necessarily an “inaccurate” one—we can’t assume that Snaporaz actually learned anything (or was allowed to), save to fear offending women for simply being a “man.”

Now, as much as women like Amber Heard have their supporters, I somehow doubt that if you asked those same people if they want someone like that in their own lives, they would probably demur like the hypocrites and self-deceivers they are. And then there is Jada Pinkett. Like Heard this user and narcissist is getting plenty of support from a mainstream media that is full of narcissists itself with a political agenda, but on social media is being roasted as a proven liar, using those lies and “emasculating” Will Smith to promote her book Worthy to women who get off on that kind of thing. 

While Prince Harry might be accused of seeking "sympathy" for titling his memoir Spare, only an arrogant egoist would title their memoir Worthy. Why not just call it Memoir Of A Self-Obsessed Diva; it would reflect more accurately its content.

Although he appeared to be “supportive” of Pinkett and claimed to gain “understanding” about her from the book, I doubt Smith even read it and knows better than to criticize what she says in it. As we saw in the Depp-Heard case, the mainstream media defends the woman and “lauds” her “motives,” while Smith’s infamous “slap” is still talked about to avoid talking about other things, such as why he did it. If you were paying attention you saw Smith initially laughing with Rock's "joke" which could also have been taken as a simple statement of fact. 

But  then you saw Pinkett give him the "evil eye." You know that Smith knew what was coming after the show. The fact that he acted in such an over-the-top way should give you an indication of just how controlling Pinkett was and how Smith feared how she was going to "spin" his initial response if he didn't do something to "fix" his "mistake." Pinkett, of course, hypocritically claims that she doesn't know what got into him to make him do it.

Social media isn’t forgiving of liars and deceivers; some people are even accusing Pinkett of lying about having Alopecia. While Smith may have been part that "Red Table Talk" fraud, he probably was a reluctant participant while Pinkett controlled the “narrative.” All that time Pinkett tried to present herself as giving viewers “tips” on how to save their marriages when it obviously didn’t help theirs, since the two have been separated since 2016. Although she doesn't want a divorce since she would then be out adrift without that lifeline to an A-Lister, Pinkett isn’t committed to the marriage and wanted to get some of that “young” action, like her son’s friend which she thinks there is nothing at all wrong with:

I just need people to know OK I did not cheat on Will Smith. No matter how sad he looked at that table.

So since they were separated it was “OK” for her to humiliate Smith by having sex with his son’s friend? WTF is in that woman’s mind? Why not just have sex with their own son? Well, probably not a good idea, since we are told that their children have already been "traumatized" by the state of their parents' relationship.

I am in a place of peace. I’m in a place of happiness. As far as Will, my relationship with him, you know, we went through that long period of separation… in order for us to journey separately and do some journeying together. And it just seems as though we’ve come to a really, really beautiful place together.

What's that crawling on my skin?

Pinkett is a B-List narcissist and user who first attached herself to an “A-list” rapper, Tupac Shakur.  But when he essentially waved her aside (but not like he did Madonna, at least writing her a goodbye letter to saying he couldn’t be with her because she was “white” and that ruined his “street cred”), instead marrying (briefly) a woman who actually cared enough to stay close to him during his time in prison. 

This was at odds with Pinkett's claim that Tupac had "proposed" to her while in prison, which one TikTok user providing the "receipts" proving that the timelines didn't "match-up."  Further, his friends claimed that Tupac wouldn't have taken seriously any relationship with Pinkett other than a photo op that boosted her own ego and not his.

Pinkett then ran to Smith when he called to say he was "free," probably because his then wife was aware of his "affair" with Pinkett. Thus she was like  Heard, who attached herself to men like Johnny Depp and Elon Musk for fame/money and then discarded them. In both cases Heard played them “romantically” initially, and then once she got her claws into them turned into something like this:

 

In the case of Pinkett, she used Smith to satisfy her ego, and regardless of his faults, Smith—like Depp—was an easy target for selfish manipulation and control. There are those of course who proclaim criticism of Pinkett is “misogynist,” but that is getting “old” and is a last refuge for people who don’t want to accept the truth. 

But frankly, it is also simply pathetic that Smith isn’t doing himself or men in general any favors by allowing himself to be abused and degraded by Pinkett without any push back. That was left to ESPN’s Steven A. Smith, who digressed from sports to say this about Pinkett:

“You want to mess with some dude who is your son’s friend? As trifling as that may seem in people’s eyes, that’s your damn business. You want to break up with your husband and all of this stuff? That’s your damn business. But this public emasculation needs to stop. Jada, all you’re doing is elevating the level of vitriol coming your way. Because it don’t matter what you say. There’s nothing you can say to a man to justify what you have done to Will Smith. Every time I see Jada Pinkett Smith talk about Will Smith, I cringe. We kings. We ain’t here like to be treated like that.”

"Let me tell y'all what Will Smith does not deserve: He does not deserve what Jada Pinkett Smith has done to him. Now I know people very, very close to Jada Pinkett Smith, and I am not going to utter a disrespectful word about her. That's not where I'm going. It's deeper than that. There are a few questions that Jada Pinkett Smith deserves to be asked to her. Where's your compassion? Where's your decency? Where is your respect for a man you still acknowledge as your husband? Where is the respect for a man you walked down the aisle with and pledged your life to in 1997 for better or worse, for rich or [for] poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do you part?

I know it is uncomfortable and grotesquely unfair to emasculate your husband publicly! Publicly. He's Will Smith. How much smaller do you want to make him? How could you do this? It's exceeded cruelty."

We might not yet live in a “matriarchy” at the moment, but we have plenty of “real world” indications of what such a world would look like. Is it a “better” one? Maybe less war with guns and rockets—unless that is just something that men are still “good for” that women can use them to do—and more chaos in a world without moral or ethical boundaries that are guided by truth.