…unless they want to allow women to make them second-class citizens as pay-back for all those years of male domination.
Just as anti-white racism is considered justifiable and benign by a large lump of progressives, misandry and flagrant anti-male rhetoric has been similarly given a stamp of approval by much of the Left and the mainstream news media. I’ve been pointing out this unethical double standard and hypocrisy for a long time, notably in 2011, when ABC News hosted an all-female roundtable to discuss how inferior men were as managers and leaders, and how much better women are.*
It has only become worse and more blatant since then. The Washington Post published this op-ed by Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University.. A sample:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Meanwhile, the New York Times didn’t feel that misandry AND racism should disqualify their choice for a place among their editors, Sarah, from whom a typical tweet is “white men are bullshit.” Now one of the three, generally awful in various ways, women who are certain to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020, Kristin Gillibrand, tweeted out last year, “Our future is: Female. Intersectional. Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started.”
Imagine any other group in place of “Female,” and what would be the fate of the author. Yet it is just a few ticks from the primary message of the last women to run for President, who repeatedly argued that her gender alone should be enough to make voting for her the right thing to do.
The latest installment of the increasingly open anti-male bigotry from progressives, Democrats and the news media arrived last week in a jaw-dropping piece of misandry from Tina Brown, the British tabloid mistress who is only regarded as less odious than Rupert Murdock because of her lack of male genitalia, and the fact that she’s a feminist, of course. I know I do a lot of fisking on Ethics Alarms, but sometimes, as with Brown’s steaming plop of rhetorical offal, merely pointing out is general that it stinks lets the sample off too easy. This thing, called “What Happens When Women Stop Leading Like Men,” demands vivisection. Read the whole ridiculous, insulting thing if you must, but here is what you are in for.
It begins with sufficient signature significance to make anyone expecting a fair or rational essay to give up on the spot:
“It has been another bad inning for male leadership. Besides the hourly flatulence of Trumpian twitterings and the addition of Brazil’s Bolsonaro to the confederacy of bullyboy power, we have been treated to a second wave of masculine mayhem. The reputations of the Patriots owner Robert Kraft, R. Kelly, the philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and even the sainted co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees, are the latest to circle the drain.”
This kind of dishonest cherry-picking is res ipsa loquitur for a bigot. Imagine listing recent black miscreants in the news and writing, “It has been another bad inning for American blacks.” In fact, this same “inning” hasn’t been so great for women, either.
Theresa May is flopping left and right as she tries to manage Brexit. Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, responded to a single terrorist attack by constraining the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders and censoring information. The biggest corporate scam artist in the U.S. is a woman, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, as a brand new HBO documentary reveals. The most infamous athletic coach of the moment is also a woman, Sylvia Hatchell, the University of North Carolina’s Hall of Fame women’s basketball coach. One of most revered figures in the sport, Haskell is under investigation after suggesting that her mostly black players would get “hanged from trees with nooses” at an upcoming game if their performance didn’t improve, and forcing players to play despite serious injuries. Another female basketball coach, Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame—coaches are leaders, right?—has announced that she refuses to hire men for her staff. That’s still gender discrimination, at least unti the Clinton-Brown Gillibrand law gets an OK from an all-female Supreme Court.
Just this week a female social justice warrior, doubtlessly inspired by female House member Maxine Waters’ exhortation that Trump supporters should be accosted and harassed in public, abused a Starbuck’s customer—male, of course—for wearing a red hat with a patriotic message. Meanwhile, two of the young, exciting women elected to the House are working hard to Make Anti-Semitism Great Again, while the old, annoying female House Speaker lets them get away with it.
And then there was that famed female editor who wrote an op-ed extolling anti-male bigotry while throwing ad hominem insults at the President. No, it has been a rough “inning” for women too.
But Tina is too busy obfuscating and spinning to mention that. In her next paragraph she extols Ardern for taking action that would be unconstitutional here. Would I be sexist if I explained Brown’s affection for gun-grabbing as the widespread female malady of finding guns “icky”? Probably.
Then we get the recitation of cases where women being put into leadership positions is automatically a wonderful thing. No, Tina, it’s a wonderful thing if they are any good at it. To Tina, though, HIllary’s Delusion rules. The fact that a woman is a women is not only sufficient for her to be believed when she accuses a man of anything, it is enough to make her trustworthy:
“Countries from Georgia to Ethiopia have recently elected their first female presidents. Women now lead industries where once the thin air was inhaled only by men. For the first time, women have the top jobs at the New York Stock Exchange and at Nasdaq. With the ascension of Kathy Warden to C.E.O. of Northrop Grumman in January, four out of five of America’s biggest defense companies are run by women. Chicago is about to get its first black female mayor…”
Yes, about those female mayors, Tina. It was just a year ago that Female So She Must Be Good Nashville mayor Megan Barry resigned in the throes of a sex scandal that she never honestly acknowledged. Or was that a different “inning”? Then…
Democratic leading light Stacey Abrams just drew a line in the sand when she squelched the idea of running for vice president with the crisp rejoinder, “You don’t run for second place.”
You mean the same Stacy Abrams who has emulated Hillary Clinton by refusing to acknowledge her defeat in an election, and who is trying to exacerbate racial division and public distrust of our institutions by claiming, without evidence, that the Georgia gubernatorial election was rigged? You know, when I was a kid, guys claimed that women shouldn’t play sports because the girls were poor sports and cried when they lost. My personal experience taught me that the stereotype was baloney, but now Tina tells me that women who exemplify and reinforce that stereotype are good leaders.
Well, I’m just a stupid man; I can’t be expected to understand.
Among the 42 new women sworn into Congress, young rock stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez electrify all of us with their passion and verve…
Passion, verve, ignorance, arrogance, incompetence…
I guess if the idea is to call all female leaders excellent regardless of what they say and do, then Brown is right, all female leaders are excellent!
“I don’t contend that women are naturally and invariably better at running governments than men.”
This is exactly what this essay does, and she does it just a couple of sentences later with this howler:
“[W]e can at least argue that women are afflicted by what Hillary Clinton, who has spent a lifetime with someone who lacks it, once called “the responsibility gene.” I can bet a bucket of Bitcoins that we’ll never learn that any of the four married women plausibly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination are secretly sexting pictures of parts of their anatomy to a boyfriend.
Has your head exploded yet? Hillary Clinton has “the responsibility” gene? Funny, she refused to take responsibility for illegally using a home-server to send and receive classified e-mails. She refuses to take responsibility for losing the 2016 election, as if there was some other inept, distant, coughing, lying, spinning hypocrite running wearing a Hillary mask, and making embarrassing ads asking plaintively, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” When she was being questioned about the slaughter at the Libyan outpost, she simultaneously said that she accepted responsibility and blamed the fiasco on her staff.
That’s some gene.
“But there is a deep lesson here. During thousands of years of civilization, women have evolved to deal with the intractable perplexities of life and find means of peaceful coexistence where men have traditionally found roads to conflict. Women have accumulated rich ways of knowing that until recently were dismissed in male circles of power. The alchemy of what has made women the way they are is mysterious: Is it a result of centuries spent trying to survive and prosper in societies where they’ve been viewed as lesser? Or, until recently, of always being appointed the family caregiver, bearing and raising children, tending to elderly parents and disabled siblings, so often left to shoulder the unpaid burdens of real life? Women have learned and taught lessons about how to cope with seeming impossibilities in ways that men traditionally — and to this day — have not. Coaching a slow learner on homework after a day of hassles at the office provides a deep experience of delayed gratification. A woman’s wisdom comes, in part, from the great juggle of her life.”
In other words, Brown is arguing that women ARE superior, and using junk science and generalities to do it.
“Who will forget the image of the stoically seated CBS anchor Gayle King intoning in a soothing tone “Robert, Robert” to a flailing, weeping, lying R. Kelly?”
I won’t. I will remember it as an example of a confrontation-averse woman who was too intimidated to do her job, which involved telling an out-of-control guest to sit down, calm down, or leave.
Salvation doesn’t lie in pursuing traditional male paths of ejaculatory self-elevation. In drawing on women’s wisdom without apology and pushing that wisdom forward into positions of power, we can soothe our world and, maybe, even save it.
Nice bigoted rhetoric there, Tina: “ejaculatory self-elevation.” Your essay rebuts your point: successful women abuse power pretty much the same way men do, and have. There’s no evidence that they are any better at leadership and management than men, just evidence, like this Times piece, that they have convinced themselves that the remedy for past discrimination is for women to be bigots themselves.
If men let them get a way with it, they really are inferior.
*”The sweeping generalities, stereotyping, and flat pronouncements of male inferiority were unrestrained. “Women run for office to do something and men run for office to be somebody,” said Amanpour at one point, summarizing an exchange. “There’s something about a group of men and testosterone, you know, making risky decisions ,” said Claire Shipman, an ABC correspondent kindly given the chance to peddle her nauseatingly-titled new book, “Womenomics.” Shipman spouted various unidentified studies purportedly showing that women in power achieved uniformly better results than those bumbling male counterparts: better hedge fund profits, better corporate performance, pretty much better everything. “Very often, men will compete for the sake of competition. It almost doesn’t even matter what happens,” Clarke declared, to no objections or qualifications from the assembled experts of the Superior Sex. “Men aren’t attracted to powerful women,” added Amanpour.
“The male-bashing and female-worship went on for fifteen minutes, with no hint of restraint or irony. The political right’s favorite tactic to show news media bias is to rhetorically ask how differently the media would handle a scandal or other news story if the political affiliations of the parties were reversed. That tactic is often abused; frequently the answer is, “they would report it exactly the same way.” Not here. An all-male panel smugly talking about how “Estrogen really is a problem” and how decisions made in the throes of PMS are inherently untrustworthy would guarantee a feminist march on ABC headquarters, blogger and op-ed fury, NOW declarations of war and the rolling of network heads.”