The tax bill is the gift that keeps giving, not least because it exposes the Democrats as the greedy party that thinks all America’s money is theirs.
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…]
It would have been nice to have kept the Alabama seat in Republican hands, but the truth is Trump doesn’t need it for now — he’s doing great on his own.
I’d be lying if I said I was pleased about what happened tonight in Alabama. I strongly feel that no Republican candidate should be taken down at the last minute by scurrilous claims based upon long ago memories from women who have shown themselves to be unreliable or even dishonest.
The reality, though, is that the media has been pounding away for weeks (“pedophile, pedophile, pedophile”) and that stuff seeps into people’s brains subliminally. It’s like old commercial jingles. Just being alive in the 1960s and 1970s meant that you could then (and probably still can now) sing a word-perfect rendition of the Oscar Meyer Weiner song.
Thanks to the media, Alabamans were starting to sing, “My candidate is a pedophile,” something that was grossly untrue even if one gave maximum credence to the WaPo’s attack dogs. Even if one assumed solely for the sake of argument that those women had no agenda and were remembering with perfect accuracy events from 40 years ago, the worst facts adduced were that Moore liked teenage girls, which does not pedophile make. That didn’t stop anyone on the Left, though, and apparently affected enough people on the Right.
Here are a couple of other thing to consider is that, while Moore is a stalwart conservative, he’s also a loose cannon. Anything he did that was the least bit . . . um, eccentric, would have been used to tar Trump and Republicans. While it’s true that Trump is successfully beating back the media, his life will be easier if he doesn’t have to deal with a whackadoodle Republican in his train.
The second thing to think about is that, had Moore been elected, the media and the Democrats (as if there’s a difference!) would have used him as a cudgel to drive Trump out on sex scandal grounds. I’ve already explained why I think that’s a ridiculous standard in Trump’s case (the voters knew who he was and elected him anyway) but, again, this deprives Lefties of some ammunition.
That’s the Moore issue. I want to make the rest of this post about Trump. Let me start by repeating Trump’s pitch-perfect congratulations to Doug Jones, along with his cheerful reminder to supporters that the ideological battle is scarcely over:
Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2017
As I see it, Trump has gotten little mileage out of Congress until just a few weeks ago, when the Stupid Party finally got its act together about taxes. Before that, Trump may as well not have had a majority in Congress. Moreover, if tax reform is as good for America and Americans as I think it will be, the elections in November 2018 really will be a whole new ball game for Trump and those Republicans who’ve learned any lessons from his presidency to date. And what would those lessons be?
Trump’s biggest successes as president have had nothing to do with Congress. He’s successful despite it.
An email is making the rounds among my conservative friends in which they share what they think about President Trump. The consensus is that they don’t like the man, but they sure do like what he’s doing. And that’s what I’ll talk about here.
I’ve decided that, unlike my friends, I like Trump quite a lot. I like him because, as Evan Sayet said, “he fights.” McCain and Romney were too “dignified” to fight, so they lost ignominiously. [Read more…]
On a day that sees the news look like news in Groundhog Day, with old stories endlessly repeating, today’s illustrated edition still brings fresh laughs.
Give yourself a gift this weekend and read my Illustrated Edition. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll wonder what the heck is going on in America!
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…]
I’ve assembled a small (but solid) collection of sex scandals posters, plus a few of my own comments about Left//Right differences vis-a-vis the scandals.
First, the posters:
There’s something for everyone (at least everyone with sound common sense, an informed mind, and a good brain) in my latest illustrated edition.
I had a post I wanted to write today, but haven’t yet figured out how to do it without violating someone’s privacy. So, while I wrestle with that, here’s an illustrated edition. I’ll start with the world as it was in the 1970s, when nobody thought there was anything outrageous about older men flirting with teenage girls:
I can’t link to it, because it’s posted in a private group, but there is a post from a 60-something Southern lady saying that, when she was a teen in the 1970s, the old-fashioned dynamic was that families helped select a husband for their young daughter. And since the expectation was that he would be the breadwinner and she would be the baby-maker, they looked for older men, in their late 20s/early 30s, who were established in their careers and would ensure that the family’s daughter would not want for anything while she was raising the children.
And now to the pictures:
The sex scandals we read about are all different and require different responses, ranging from letting the voters speak to criminal prosecution.
Except for hysterical stories about President Trump drinking water or feeding fish the wrong way, it seems as if the news is entirely taken over with breaking sex scandals in entertainment and politics. Despite the efforts to conflate them in order to get rid of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, there are very different types of scandals going on here and they call for different responses. I’ve tried to break down the categories.
1. Roy Moore and Donald Trump — Let the People decide. Both Roy Moore and Donald Trump were well-positioned to win elections when they were hit by 11th hour — no, 11th hour and 57th minute — accusations that they had committed sexual improprieties against women. Both men denied doing so. (And yes, it’s true that Trump was caught on tape saying that, if you’re rich, you can grab women, which is no doubt a truism for the rich and powerful. However, he was not heard saying, “I am rich so I, personally, did grab women’s crotches.” So again, Trump, like Moore, has denied the claims against him.) The accusations against both politically-polarizing men, therefore, are “he said/she said” matters.
In the case of both Moore and Trump, it quickly became clear that the women making the allegations were politically opposed to the candidate against whom they asserted wrongdoing. The only exception is one of Moore’s accusers, who contends she is a Republican. Unfortunately for her credibility, her past is drowned in drugs and alcohol and she has a history of accusing men of sexual assault and harassment. That could mean she’s a vulnerable person upon whom men prey, that she’s hanging out with the wrong crowd, or that she’s a liar.)
In the case of both Moore and Trump, when seen in context of the time and place, the alleged behavior is not that outré. Trump was living the lush life in New York during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, when the city was drenched in hyper-sexual behavior. I’m not defending that time — it was a time of loose morals, to say the least — nor am I saying that those who participated in the debauchery have a good excuse for doing so. Nevertheless, if there’s ever a situation in which one can say “everyone was doing it,” the New York scene back then was the time and the place.
Likewise, when it comes to Moore, we’re talking Alabama in the 1970s. Alabama was not New York. Instead, it was probably closer to the 1950s, a time of unprecedentedly high teen pregnancies — high because women married and got pregnant at 16, 17, and 18. If Moore did have a penchant for teens, these girls were considered “of age” and the age difference was not seen as an overwhelming barrier. Again, I’m not saying his behavior was nice or moral; I’m saying it was not illegal and it was also not far from the mid-line of normal for that time and place.
One other aspect of the Moore case that deserves attention is the fact that people have raised credible concerns about the yearbook that Gloria Allred refuses to allow any experts to inspect. Suspicious people have pointed out that the yearbook was signed in December (who signs a yearbook then?); that the handwriting in the note differs from that in the signature; that the year 1977 is written twice, which is itself unusual, and that it is written in two different hands; and that the signature, which the initials DA appended, is the not the way Moore signed things but is, instead, the way Moore’s clerk signed his name when he presided over the divorce of the woman now accusing him. That is, she wrote his name along with her initials to show that she was authorized to sign on his behalf. Lastly, considering what an incredibly contentious career Moore has had, Alabama voters may wonder why these long-standing claims against him are emerging for the first time only when it’s too late to get another Republican on the ballot. Hmmm. [Read more…]
While posters about sex scandals take pride of place in this illustrated edition, you’ll find more here than just the sordid state of our nation.
The Left is using Hollywood sex scandals to paint all men as complicit, with the hope that guilt-ridden men remorsefully embrace Progressive ideology.
When the sex scandals first came out of Hollywood, I have to admit to wallowing in schadenfreude. After years of seeing Hollywood’s premier Leftists use their unbelievably big bully pulpit to preen themselves as self-anointed feminists, race-aware avatars, neo-peaceniks, etc. — even as they produced unbelievably ugly fare (link NSFW) — it felt good, really good, to witness them struggling to explain how they allowed abusive sexuality to run riot in their community.
Of course, it was too good to last. Leftists have hard-wired in them Rahm Emanuel’s dictum that they should never let a crisis go to waste. So it was that women all across America were encouraged to say #MeToo” and to share their stories. For the most part, these women’s stories did not involve rape or men masturbating in front of them (an exhibitionist form of sexual fantasy that seems particularly well-suited to Hollywood’s innate exhibitionism). Instead, they were about the boss who kept putting his hand on their arm or the construction workers who whistled when they walked by.
I’m not defending touchy-feely bosses or noisy construction workers. I just think there’s a difference between that icky boss and the one who says “if you want to keep this job, you’d better put out.” There’s also a difference between whistling construction workers behind a fence or balancing on beams six stories above the ground and those unnerving gangs of unemployed young men surrounding a woman on a street, making overtly sexual comments. [Read more…]