The posters I gathered are overwhelmingly about Stupid Leftists and the stupid things they think and do, so this Bookworm Beat will make you laugh and cry.
The posters I gathered are overwhelmingly about Stupid Leftists and the stupid things they think and do, so this Bookworm Beat will make you laugh and cry.
Here it is — a round-up about American life in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, with everything from politics to plumbing thrown in.
This will be my last big post before my week-long hiatus (during which, as I said, I’m sure something big will happen). Fear not, though, because my friend, the brilliant and inimitable Wolf Howling will be holding the fort in my absence. Meanwhile, here’s some stuff about American life that you can chew on while I’m gone.
But before I get to that, I wanted to update you on the dog situation. Mr. Bookworm finally conceded that our aged, demented, blind, deaf, arthritic dog with an anxiety disorder was (a) miserable and (b) unreasonably burdensome. When she began needing walks every 90 minutes to stay ahead of the incontinence, and even that wasn’t always successful, he made the appointment at the vet. And when she started keeping us up all night long, panting, restless, unhappy, and incontinent, he said he wouldn’t dream of canceling the appointment.
So it was that yesterday our little dog made the journey over the rainbow bridge to doggy heaven. The vet did everything she could to make it a comfortable experience, including having a special cushion for the dog, rather than a scary metal table. She also provided premium doggy treats and our little gal happily munched through those treats to her very last breath.
It was what I call a “Bing Crosby death.” As some of you may recall, Bing Crosby was an avid golfer. It was his favorite pastime. He died of a massive heart attack while golfing on a lovely course in Spain, overlooking the Mediterranean. I always like imagining Bing in the midst of a good round, winding up for a massive swing, and being felled in an instant, with his last conscious thought before Death claimed him being “I am happy.”
Many thanks to all of you who chimed in with your stories and opinions about when to put a beloved pet down. I don’t think I clearly conveyed in the comments how grateful I was for all the wisdom you so generously shared with me.
And now back to our regularly scheduled Bookworm Beat round-up:
Kavanaugh inflamed the moderates. My friend Neo is one of the smartest people blogging today. It’s no surprise, therefore, that she had an incredibly brilliant insight about the reason Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was an earthquake, rather than a temporary tremor. She makes nine specific points, all of which are worth reading, but I want to focus on her last three points:
(7) At that point, it was the moderate wing of the GOP that was galvanized. They suddenly discovered that the rules they thought they’d been playing by all this time, the ones they thought at least some of their Democratic colleagues shared, meant nothing to the opposition.
(8) And that’s why it was the moderate side of the right that stepped up to the plate and delivered the goods in the Kavanaugh fight. Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, all of them harshly vilified in the past by the more conservative wing of the party, found themselves uttering words that those who had previously reviled them were now cheering.
(9) Those words from the RINOs had more power to rally the base than if the same messages had been delivered by senators further to the right. The factor of surprise made for a much more attention-getting story. Lindsay Graham’s tirade was much more newsworthy because it came from Graham rather than, for example, Ted Cruz.
I clipped a lot from the above quotation, because I want to encourage you to read the whole thing. Neo will help you understand the catharsis in the Republican party over the last two weeks. [Read more…]
The Kavanaugh hearings have served a useful purpose in that they revealed the Leftists’ vicious and unbridled lust for power to all Normal Americans.
I’m delighted that it looks as if the Republicans, with help from Manchin and no help from Murkowski, will be able to drag Kavanaugh across the finish line. However, while Kavanaugh’s place on the Supreme Court will enhance that Court’s reverence for the Constitution as written, not just as Leftists desire it, the fissures in America have deepened, which the articles and videos below highlight.
The only bright spot is that, while the fissures are deeper, those on the Leftist side may find themselves more marginalized as those people whom Kurt Schlichter calls “Normals” are increasingly disgusted by the self-styled elites excess and hostility to both Normals and constitutional norms. And with that, some things for you to enjoy:
A reminder why Normals recoiled from the unfounded charges against Kavanaugh. This video is from a Catholic Women’s organization, but I think it readily applies to all women who don’t hate men:
I know that, since the day my son was born, I realized that boys, in their own way, are just as vulnerable as girls. I also realized that today’s social norms are incredibly hostile to men, tearing them down instead of cultivating their manly virtues.
A PragerU video reminds us that feminism is also bad for women. Not only is today’s Third Wave man-hating feminism bad for boys, it’s bad for girls too:
I don’t think we can make enough of the point Klavan advances that Third Wave feminism, instead of cultivating women’s virtues as things that contribute profoundly to the good of society, insists that women must be weaker versions of men. This has resulted in women who drink more, sleep around more, and insist on getting in the way on the battlefield, all while downplaying the one thing that they’re uniquely suited to do: nurturing. It’s ironic really that I say this, because I hate nurturing. But I’m good at it. It’s hardwired, whether I like it or not.
I was actually primed for Klavan’s message because years ago I read an excellent book called Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy, a very depressing book that first exposed me to a world in which young women try desperately, and in a soul-killing way, to compete with men when it comes to sexual excess and debauchery. Men used to think this was a good idea. Sex! Sex! More sex! However, when you look at the horribly damaged women this creates (see the Steve Crowder video, below, and what I have to say about it), men have to be having second thoughts. [Read more…]
D.L. Hughley’s “humor” illustrates that today’s black rights and feminist movements are a form of Stockholm Syndrome rather than signs of true strength.
D.L. Hughley is a well-known “woke” black comedian, which means he is considered to be on the cutting edge of modern social justice *ahem* comedy. (I added the ahem because so much social justice comedy seems to consist of saying “That’s not funny.”) I’d like to share with you one of Hughley’s riffs from September 2017 (language alert):
Now, the black man in me is appalled by Trump, but the nigga in me is intrigued. “How is he getting away with this?”
Now they want to build a wall and kick all the Mexicans out. I ain’t no engineer, but you better not kick those Mexicans out before that wall get built. ‘Cause black people do not work outside like that no more. Fuck that shit. We had our turn. That’s what February’s all about. When a job’s too hard for us, we call Mexicans. “Hey, Javier, what you doing, man?” “Yeah. Meet me in front of the Home Depot.” “You can wear your soccer shoes. I need a living room built by tomorrow.” “Oh, and happy Cinco de Mayo, my brother.”
Want to kick out the hardest-working people in America. I cannot wait to see white people cutting they own grass. “Jesus Christ, is it always this hot out here?”
A lot of poor white people voted for Donald Trump. How the fuck you broke and white in America? How did you blow a 400-year head start? “Aw, you almost had it.” “Got to be quicker.” If you broke and white in America, you are wasting your whiteness. You should put your whiteness on eBay. Black people will buy that, won’t we? “Ah…” “Gently used whiteness.” “This is from West Virginia. I don’t need that. That’s just…” “That’s like being a nigga right there. I don’t need this.” “Percocet come with this. I don’t know. What’s that?” “Ooh, give me some of that New York whiteness. Ooh, Fifth Avenue whiteness. Sprinkle a little Jew on it. Shit!”
You can read the whole shtick at the link. The humor eluded me, but I seldom laugh at racism, antisemitism, misinformation, and hatred. Thinking about it, though, I can see why the Left loves him.
What actually fascinated me about the shtick was the overwhelming sense of victimhood that pervades it. Blacks are no longer heroes in their own narrative. They are weak, used, abused, degraded. In Hughley’s words (not mine), they are “niggas”.
I’ve never heard a Jew refer to himself or other Jews as a Kike. I’ve never heard an Italian refer to himself or other Italians as a Guinea. I’ve never heard an Asian person refer to himself or other Asians as a Chink. Yet “hip” blacks routinely refer to themselves by a term that they consider so debased no one else is allowed to utter it. Talk about internalizing self-loathing.
That same sense of victimhood pervades modern feminism. When I was growing up, Helen Reddy sang the feminist anthem: “I am woman, hear me roar!” We were strong, we were invincible. We women were empowered. We could bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never, never, never let you forget you’re a man. (Yeah, that’s the Enjoli commercial.)
This Bookworm Beat has as its starting points Obama’s self-aggrandizing, offensive speech. Then it gets to the fun and interesting stuff for you to enjoy.
He’s a dear man, except when he gets on politics. Then, his inner communist emerges, loud and shrill. He listened to Obama’s speech this morning but when I asked him about it as a conversational gambit, he couldn’t tell me what he had heard. Having looked at the speech myself, I’m not surprised at his failure to discuss the speech. This inability wasn’t due to advanced age. As always, aside from self-aggrandizement and insults, Obama has little to say.
— ABC News (@ABC) September 7, 2018
So let’s move on to more interesting stuff, including more riffs about Obama’s many failures:
The Trump economy is still going strong. The economy is booming as it has few times before in American history. In his forgettable speech, Obama tried to own it.
It’s true that Obama presided over a decent stock market, but that was because investors were too afraid to do anything with their money in his hyper-regulatory environment but plant it in the stock market. They didn’t invent things, grow businesses, or hire people. To the extent people had jobs, they were dead-end, low-paying, part-time affairs. And so the economy staggered on for eight long years, without a single serious upward blip.
And then Trump got elected and, magically, the economy started roaring. It roared with even more vigor when Trump got the tax man off the back of businesses (i.e., employers) by bringing America’s corporate tax rate in line with the corporate tax rate in most of Europe. (Yup, all those semi-socialist nations so beloved of the Left had corporate tax rates lower than America’s.)
Based upon the soaring economy, I’m going to venture a prediction. I doubt that many minorities will be able to make themselves pull the lever for Republican candidates. However, I suspect that they’ll passively-aggressively do so by failing to turn out for Democrats. After all, the Democrats did not improve their living standards; at least one Republican has.
The true story behind Obama’s Iran deal made me want to cry. Wait! That’s wrong. It didn’t make me want to cry. It actually made Wendy Sherman, the chief American negotiator cry — right in front of the Iranian team. Apparently staying in a super luxury hotel for several days and eating only five star cuisine, weakened her so much that, in the face of their meanie demands, she broke down.
Matthew Continetti has the story and I urge you to read it. Then you can decide whether you want to laugh or cry. All I know is that, having read it, I thanked God once again for President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump garners praise for his Iraq policy. Obama incontinently left Iraq, giving birth to ISIS and creating an opening for Iran. According to one man at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, while Trump cannot undo the sum of damage Obama inflicted on that beleaguered nation, he’s making really smart decisions:
[T]he real reason why the US is staying put in Iraq is to prevent it from becoming an Iranian client state, as Lebanon has become and as Syria might soon become. The investment of 2,000 troops, most of whom serve as advisors and trainers of the Federal Army of Iraq, is worth its price in gold in achieving this objective compared to the 100,000 American troops who were on the ground before the massive withdrawal in 2010.
This underlying quest for independence from Iranian tutelage justifies President Trump’s wager that 2,000 troops might be worth maintaining to prevent the new fall of Baghdad. The least it could do is stave off the Iranians sufficiently for Iraq’s government and citizens to decide for themselves what the nature of their relationship with Iran will be.
The whole analysis makes for fascinating reading. [Read more…]
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.