Last week saw Trump almost completely erase the Obama legacy — an event that, peculiarly enough, coincided perfectly with delightful benefits for America.
Last week saw Trump almost completely erase the Obama legacy — an event that, peculiarly enough, coincided perfectly with delightful benefits for America.
He tosses out the baited hook. She, like some ravenous trigger[ed] fish, swallows it whole. Well done, sir, well done.
Feminist artist in Marin ditches Keats’s idea that “”Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” Instead, it’s all about anti-male political statements.
The Marin newspaper ran a glowing profile about a Marin “artist.” I was less impressed. You can read it for yourself here. Alternatively, I’ve got the highlights below.
The first thing you need to know about Lara Myers is that she’s got a very low rage threshold:
Like many women, Lara Myers isn’t too happy with the way President Trump treats women. But the tipping point came when Trump gestured to a Irish journalist while he was on the phone with the new prime minister of Ireland last summer, and complimented her on her nice smile — an exchange that was captured on video and went viral on social media.
“That enraged me. Here’s this woman at the top of her game, they picked her to come to the White House, and that kind of thing can happen,” she says.
Apparently the rage comes because she was triggered. Twenty five or so years ago, when she clerked at an allegedly high-end Chicago law firm, a partner looked her over and said something along the lines of “I see why you hired her.” Judging by the photo in the article, either the partner had low standards or she’s aged badly or that story just isn’t true. I know that’s catty of me to say, but let’s be honest here….
Still, the triggering was real and so this social justice warrior/artist came up with an idea: jewelry that repeats sexist things. She nudges other women until they remember some mild insult from decades before and then inscribes those statements on her . . . ahem . . . art: [Read more…]
Understanding the Men’s Rights Movement hints that feminism’s war on men is a class-based issue tied to the relative safety of a middle-class man’s life.
I have been watching a fascinating documentary called The Red Pill. The filmmaker is Cassie Jaye, a young woman whose previous documentaries were Progressive in their orientation, whether looking at abstinence movements amongst conservatives, the virtues of gay adoption, or hunger in my own Marin County.
The Red Pill examines the men’s rights movement, which feminists view as an ugly, sexist, misogynistic, white-supremacist, homophobic backlash against women’s rights, black rights, and gay rights. (If you’re wondering about black and gay rights, it has to do with a seldom recognized facet of intersectionality. That movement doesn’t just say that women, and blacks, and gays, and Muslims must hang together. It also says that, if you run afoul of one victim group, you must be shamed as an enemy of all victim groups.)
Jaye started researching and filming her documentary operating under the belief that she would be doing an expose about really horrible men. To her surprise, though, she learned that the men aren’t horrible at all. They are hurting, and hurting badly.
Over and over the men to whom Jaye speaks (Warren Farrell, Dean Esmay, Harry Crouch, Fred Hayward, etc.), make the same points: Men don’t have privileges, they have burdens, and the numbers show it. [Read more…]
The Women’s Liberation Movement failed true feminism by creating a generation of women who deem themselves unworthy of a defense against sexual bullies.
We often talk about three waves of feminism, but I think there were actually three-and-a-half. The first two were necessary and appropriate; the next one-and-a-half were not. This post is about that “half a wave” that began in the 70s and still grinds on, not empowering women, but somehow dis-empowering them.
First Wave feminism was the 19th century push for women to have the vote. A subset of this was for women to have independent legal (and financial) standing separate from their fathers and husbands. I am very grateful for those First Wave feminists.
Second Wave feminism was the push from the 1960s and 1970s to give women equal pay for equal work and allow them equal opportunities for equal abilities. Had that been the standard in the 1950s, when my Mom was working at Bechtel as a draftswoman to support the family while my Dad was temporarily unemployed, she would have earned the same salary as the draftsman at the desk next to her. He earned more than she did, she was told, because “he had a family to support.” Because Second Wave feminists fought for these principles, I had the opportunity to get a law degree and millions of other women got the chance to learn and work to the full extent of their abilities and interests.
(This was not an entirely unmixed blessing. Many women found that they were supposed to be both Ward and June Cleaver. Other women found that they didn’t like being Ward Cleaver, but that social pressure kept them away from being June. Given the stresses on the Middle Class because women had these opportunities, it’s perhaps unsurprising that many in the post-Millennial generation are very conservative and dream of a world in which men work and women make a home for the family.)
Third Wave feminism is what we’re seeing on college campuses, with unpleasant seepage into American life outside of those campuses. This is the feminism that holds that women are equal to men only when they’re not better than men. This is the feminism that speaks of “toxic masculinity.” This is the feminism that proclaims every man a rapist and every woman an avatar of honesty. This is an ugly battle of the sexes that seeks not to temper men’s best qualities for the betterment of all, but to emasculate and degrade them. It’s ugly and damaging and evil.
But what about the famous Women’s Liberation Movement? Where’s that fit in? To me, the Women’s Liberation Movement is the “half” movement, the one that comes between and is also a part of both Second and Third Wave feminism. This was the empowerment phase of feminism. It was women: [Read more…]
For Sunday evening, just a few observations about Leftists — how they’re made, what they want, and just how crazy they really are.
What makes a Leftist. I was born a Leftist, in that I was raised in a family that voted Democrat. However, because my parents were Kennedy Democrats, when the Democrats took a hard Left turn and began the journey to becoming today’s Leftists, I bailed.
Today’s young people are becoming Leftists through the education system, as well as the media world in which they live. They’re indoctrinated and ignorant. One always hopes that they can gently be cajoled to conservativism if they are carefully introduced to logic and facts. Also, life in the real world, away from academia, has a way of helping people part ways with the factual fantasy that is socialism. It just doesn’t work as promised in the real world.
And then there are the ones who come to socialism through womanly wiles. Paul Krugman is repeatedly cited as an example of this kind of Leftist. Back in his heyday, when his economic ideas were sharp enough to win him a Nobel Prize, Krugman was a garden-variety Democrat. Somewhere along the line, though, Krugman lost his wits and became a socialist, guided by anger, pessimism, and paranoia.
Those who have followed Krugman’s career point to the likely cause: In 1996, he married Robin Wells, herself an economist. While Krugman was, as I said, a garden-variety Democrat, Wells is more of an actual Leftist who, among other things, has written sympathetically about the Occupy movement. You can get here a small sense here of the values that drive her economic worldview:
Today’s sexual “Reign of Terror” started in the 1960s, when the Left turned social mores on their heads — and it will get worse before it gets better.
The original “Reign of Terror” occurred during the French Revolution, when socialism itself was fully birthed. It was a period during which the French Revolutionaries executed thousands of people, many of whom were themselves Revolutionaries, including the father of the French Revolution, Robespierre. We are seeing something akin to the Reign of Terror on the Left today with the sudden purging of stalwart Progressives who have engaged in sexual harassment and abuse. How did we get here and how will it end?
Through the early 60’s, we had conservative culture that I think could be defined by two things — a general belief in the chivalric code and a restrictive, though amorphous, view of appropriate sexual conduct and morals that was half Biblical and half Victorian. Society at large called girls “sluts” if they engaged in any sex outside of marriage. Meanwhile, we boys called such girls . . . on Friday nights with no real opprobrium unless we got the girl pregnant. There was a double standard, but one dictated by biological realities.
At its best, such conservatism comes from ancient Jewish and later Christian traditions aimed at creating and maximizing the strength of families, since families have, since time immemorial, been the foundational unit of civilized society. These traditions reined in men, whose biological impulse is to spread their seed far and wide. They made it clear morally that men should marry a woman, be monogamous during marriage, and raise the children of the marriage.
Having these traditions in place protected women, for whom pregnancy is a life-changing event, and, most importantly, protected children from the scourge of single motherhood. Today, the risks are poverty for the girls and criminality for the boys. In olden days, the more extreme risk was starvation.
Such traditions also promoted a healthy society, by limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, many of which were potentially fatal in the long run. At their worst, such traditions were stamped with 5th century Augustinian notions that sex was evil, sinful and dirty.
All of this set up a permanent tension in society. Perhaps most illustrative of this is American Puritan society during the century after their arrival on these shores in 1620. Despite being intensely religious, they also struggled with natural human impulse. True, they punished with fines and the lash unwed women who bore children (though Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, written long after the demise of Puritan society, unfairly caricatures that time).
But of all the discussions I have read in original sources, at least outside of the pulpit, the Puritan’s concern with unwed pregnant women was pragmatic, not biblical. They were concerned with the societal costs of unwed mothers and their children raised without a father.
That said, Puritans were, perhaps surprisingly, fully human in giving in to their sexual impulses. Best estimates are that half of the women in American Puritan society between 1620 and 1720 went to the altar with a baby bump. The Left, in attacking Western civilization, ridicules that as hypocrisy. Actually it is nothing more than the aspirational goals on one hand and the reality of humanity on the other, with Puritan mores intervening to shape, as best as possible, the result of that tension.
Fast forward to the rise of socialism and the socialist goal to remake the West into a utopian society. Ms. BWR, in an American Thinker article several years ago, pointed out that socialists have, since their inception, used sex as a tool to attack the Judeo-Christian religions and to sexualize children. In a related post of a few years ago, I traced the long effort of the socialist movement in this country to intervene in the family unit, inserting government (Leftist government) in loco parentis to strip sex of its moral and ethical dimensions for children. What began with the avowedly socialist Margaret Sanger in the early 20th century became part and parcel of the radicalized Third Wave feminist movement of the 60’s. [Read more…]
The Me Too meme on Facebook encourages a sense of victimhood in women, and is part of the way we deny biological reality and cultural anti-rape bulwarks.
If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too.’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.
As you’ve surely noticed, the meme jumbles together harassment and assault, which are entirely different things. Assault is a criminal act. It involves any unwanted physical touches on the person, from the butt grabbing Ben Affleck apparently enjoys, to the pussy-grabbing that President Trump noted rich guys get away with (without ever saying he’d done it himself), to out-and-out rape. Harassment, on the other hand, doesn’t involve physical contact. It involves mental contact, with the man using words or touch-free motions to impose his power or sexual desires on an unwilling female.
Just about every woman I know who routinely appears on Facebook has put up a “Me too” post. I suspect, though, that few of them have actually been raped, something for which I am grateful. One of the virtues of life in America is that women aren’t raped often, even on college campuses.
In addition to rape, of course, there are other sexualized (not sexy) touches that men visit on unwilling women. I once had a guy twerk on me on a crowded bus, years before twerking was a thing. Technically, this was probably an assault, but I simply ignored it. In my mind, it wasn’t a “guys are animals, I’ve been assaulted” moment. Instead, I took it as a “there are way too many crazy people wandering around San Francisco” thing and got on with my life.
From what I gather reading my female friends’ posts and comments, many of the “Me too” women had that type of interaction — unwanted touches that were fleeting, offensive, and part of life in a world with men — and characterize it as an “assault.”
What most seem to have experienced, though, is some form of non-physical sexual harassment. That’s the kind of contact between men and women that is purely a head game — the man doesn’t lay hands on a woman, but he speaks or behaves in a way that’s purely sexual and can range from scary to offensive to (yes) funny, depending on how pathetic their genitals are when the raincoat opens to how genuinely funny their dirty, or slightly risque, jokes in the workplace are. (Yes, I will laugh at a clever, and not too dirty, dirty joke.) [Read more…]
There’s a lot of unintentional humor in What Happened, as Hillary Clinton cluelessly reveals that she is a foolish, deceitful, entitled, nasty woman.
I’m still slogging my way through Hillary’s turgid tome, What Happened. The more one reads it, the more one realizes how accurate the joke in the post to the left: What Happened [by] Hillary Rodham Clinton really is a book that has both the question and answer on the front cover.
Hillary, working hard to sell herself, comes across as just an awful woman or, on second thought, an awful simulacrum of a woman. There’s no there there. Instead, there’s a narcissist defined by her core emptiness.
Two recent reviews perfectly sum up everything that’s wrong with the book. If you ignore the usual Trump-bashing that is required from all Progressives, you cannot do better than to read this review from the Huffington Post. It is vicious and entirely on point. Also, Kyle Smith’s review perfectly articulates my thoughts as I slog my way through the book.
Given the quality reviews already out there, this post is not going to be a book review (especially because I’ve only read 30% of the book so far). Instead, I’ll share with you those passages that I found hilarious (Hillary-ous?) although Hillary did not mean them to be so. I’ll also throw in a few ironies, some sarcasm, and the occasional moment when common sense runs into Hillary’s self-serving arguments.
To begin with there’s the endless name-dropping from someone who keeps insisting that she’s just an ordinary person, completely tuned in to the lives of ordinary people around her. Here’s a representative passage, describing her idea of some R&R during the campaign:
One beautiful summer evening, Jimmy and Jane Buffett hosted a concert for us at their home in the Hamptons on Long Island. I was the first presidential candidate Jimmy ever endorsed, and he wanted to do something special for me. So he, Jon Bon Jovi, and Paul McCartney played a set in a tent full of twinkly lights, and everyone danced on the lawn under the stars. It was magical. (Clinton, Hillary Rodham. What Happened (Kindle Locations 1379-1382), Simon & Schuster edition.)
I don’t know that I’ll ever feel the same again about Jimmy Buffett. I already lost interest in Paul McCartney because of his Bush bashing.
One of the points critics have made about both Hillary and her book is that she’s the ultimate “Progressive as micromanaging expert.” There really is no big political picture. There’s just Hillary’s “I know what’s best” attitude, one that sees her following every meeting with a “regular” person by announcing that she has a new policy initiative in her bag of tricks. For example, she took on bullying:
Many kids asked what I would do about bullying, which made me want to become President even more. I had an initiative called Better Than Bullying ready to go. (What Happened (Kindle Locations 1387-1388).)
First of all, this is really not a presidential issue and a presidential candidate shouldn’t be wasting time on it. Second of all, the lack of self-awareness is hysterical. After all, this is the same First Lady described as a monster of abuse when it came to Vince Foster: [Read more…]
My friend Lulu weighs in on the fact that the Marie Claire review of the Dunkirk movie suffers from fatal hetero-normative gender identity assumptions.
I must take issue with Mehera Bonner of Marie Claire and her review of the World War II film Dunkirk in which she states,
. . . my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it’s not like I need every movie to have “strong female leads.” Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams “men-only” — and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it. . . .
Honestly, how dare she? As Bonner should well know, gender is determined by a personal identification based on an internal awareness. It is what we feel inside, what we know ourselves to be. Our external parts do not always conform. How could she not know that some of those soldiers had to have been non-binary. Some were undoubtedly queer or transgender on the inside. In fact, some of those soldiers were no doubt women — despite their penises.
I would advise Bonner to remember that when she assumes that the movie is men-only and caters to pretentious man-splaining men. How wrong she is. I did not see a toxically masculine film as she did. On the contrary, I envisioned brave transgender women soldiers fighting alongside male, hetero-normative, cis-gender soldiers and proving the historicity of the struggle against restrictive gender roles. Those were our brave sisters out there too and they deserve Bonner’s respect.
I recently wrote posts about both Disney Princesses (and their dresses) and about Tesla and other electric cars. These are a few fun updates to those posts.
I wrote two posts in the past few days that have already been overtaken by events. The first post was about my disdain for Tesla, which I see as a rich people’s car built on poor people’s backs. The second post was about the impact Disney Princesses have on American women — and why.
My Tesla post is adequate, but the comments my readers have left are splendid, including updated information about battery technology. I have one more comment I want to add to the subject, plus a great link to a post at Zero Hedge. The comment is that, yes, it’s true that America’s rich people pay most of America’s taxes, so one can reasonably argue that they’re just getting their own money back — which is a point I’ve made in past posts over the years regarding electric cars. However, to the extent the taxpaying working class has any of its taxes siphoned off to Tesla, I think that’s wrong.
Also, a significant percentage of America’s tax revenue comes from corporations (corporations other than Tesla, I guess). You know and I know, though, that corporations don’t hang on to the deficits occasioned by their tax obligations. Instead, they pass those costs on to consumers. So when Wal-Mart has a hefty tax bill, it raises the prices on its products by a few pennies here and a few pennies there. I can easily absorb those increases. Poor people cannot, making corporate taxes an extremely regressive form of taxation.
The other update I want to add to my Tesla post is that Zero Hedge points out that governments around the world are announcing that all cars within their jurisdictions must be electric within “X” number of years. Those laws will bring problems even an elementary school child should be able to predict:
Most people will never accept this. Would you accept waiting 30-45 minutes (absolute best-case scenario, if a “fast” charger is available) to put a partial charge back into your EV? Were you aware that at the high-voltage “fast” chargers, due to the nature of the thing (and for the sake of battery life) you cannot put more than 80 percent charge back into the thing?
So, whatever the advertised best-case range of the car is, subtract 20 percent.
That puts even the longest-ranged of them in the same class as the fiercest-guzzling IC-engined SUV. Maybe 200 miles or so. But the fierce-guzzling SUV can be refueled to 100 percent in 5 minutes.
Which would you prefer to take on a road trip? One where there might not be a “fast” charger available when you run out of juice. What then?
Then, you spend overnight wherever you happen to be.
Electric car freaks peddle a Disney-esque fantasy to counter this objection. They envision everyone plugging in at home, overnight – or at work, while they work. The problem with this idea is the ant-like uniformity of use it assumes. Everyone going to work – and back home – at pretty much the same time.
Exactly! You also need to factor in the fact that, if California goes all-electric, but neighboring states don’t, there’s no way California drivers can take their cars outside of California borders. The moment you get to Nevada or Oregon, your electric car becomes a huge problem.
I don’t have any changes to make or new ideas to add to my Cinderella/Princess dress post. However, With perfect timing, the conservative blogosphere has been lighting up about the fact that a leftist mommy took it upon herself to edit her almost-3-year-old daughter’s Disney book: [Read more…]
Unquestioning groupthink is a Leftist hallmark, especially for blacks. Antonia Okafor details how she escaped from that intellectual prison.
Insiders and observers are giving good advice to the Democrat party, but it all avoids the obvious: Democrats cannot tell the truth about their goals.
Several articles in the news recently combine to highlight a salient point about today’s Democrat party. The first is from Dan Balz, at Wapo, the title of which succinctly states Balz’s points: “Beyond opposing Trump, the Democrats are still searching for a message.” Balz identifies what is slowly becoming obvious to Progressivs — after four special election losses, while opposing Trump is enough for them, it is not enough for everyone else, including people who voted for Trump in 2016. You’d think they would have been quicker to realize that constantly telling voters “I hate you and everything you stand for” is not persuasive. Still, it’s a sign that Progressives can learn that, as Balz notes, at least some are calling for an emphasis on the economy.
For those looking to make a sale to Trump voters and undecided voters, though, a Democrat party emphasis on the economy is going to be a hard sell. It’s only the base that’s honest enough to admit that, from the top down, the only economic goal the modern Democrat party has is full frontal socialism:
For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in government’s role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls “Medicare for All.”
The other article, which comes from The Hill, notes that some Dems, seemingly those not on the hard Left, are pushing their congresscritters to stop talking about Russia all of the time.
Taking these two articles in conjunction, there is little doubt that, subject to a small (and easily ignored) subset of semi-sane Democrats, Progressives (aka the Democrat Party) see talking about Russia as far more edifying than the economy. One can’t help but be fascinated by what the Democrat Party power brokers mean to do if they “turn towards the economy.” How does one push socialist ideas while denying their socialism, even as the base is screaming “We love you, Karl Marx”?
The hard reality that the Progressives face is that Obama pulled us hard Left, with higher taxes and a tsunami of regulations, and he did so with the Democrat Party’s enthusiastic support. At the end of the day, of course, nothing that the Dems did “created jobs.” Indeed, the Dems are currently hoping that nobody notices that, in just the first five months of his presidency, the Trump effect elevated black employment to heights not seen for the last 17 years. So what exactly would their turn to the economy be? [Read more…]
The Black Lives Matter movement will be a dead-end until American blacks start focusing on the scourge of missing fathers in their poorest communities.
Buzzfeed, of all places, has an excellent article about the turmoil in the upper echelons of the Black Lives Matter movement. The article was a reminder, if one was needed, that the Black Lives Matter movement is an entirely outward looking movement. That is, it targets non-blacks — in law enforcement, education, employment, etc. — and demands that these people and institutions change for the benefit of American blacks.
As best as I can tell, the Black Lives Matter movement never had an inner focus, looking at the black community to see what changes it can make to improve the quality of black lives, including those black lives that intersect with law enforcement, education, etc. Indeed, at least on college campuses, as one looks at self-segregation and demands that education be brought down to an infantile level, ostensibly to benefit blacks, the Black Lives Matter movement seems to have had a negative effect on blacks, leaving them less, not more, capable of functioning in the world of money and power.
This is a shame because there is one thing above all things that the Black Lives Matter movement can do to ensure that black lives do in fact matter — that thing is to encourage the magical middle class model of education, job, marriage, and family, in that order. Even more, within that model, black lives activists should push for a dynamic in which heterosexual couples have monogamous relationships that see the man stick around to parent his children.
Study after study shows how much fathers matter. When it comes to girls, girls with supportive fathers are happier people who engage in safer relationships with the opposite sex:
The hallmark characteristic of a fatherless daughter is fear of abandonment. Because they never got the direction needed from a father figure, they learn to make up their own survival playbook. This can lead to negative coping skills such as sexual promiscuity, total avoidance of intimacy, isolation, substance abuse, anxiety and depression.
Fatherless daughters report having difficulty in relationships and in the workplace interacting with men because they were never taught how to feel comfortable with a man in their father’s absence. They can also carry into adulthood conflicting issues with their mothers from becoming her caretaker for a time or witnessing so much chaos in the home. Financial distress or poverty often follows father loss, and this can have a significant impact in every area of a girl’s upbringing.
It’s another superb illustrated edition, with thought-provoking posters about politics, social issues, and foreign policy. You won’t want to miss it.
This is first and foremost an illustrated edition post except . . . before you even look at these posters, please read Victor Davis Hanson’s “Regime Change by Any Other Name?” It’s phenomenal. And now the pictures: