Oh for the good old days, when eevil right-wingers were all sexist aggressors and progressives were all noble allies of women!
To think that Harvey Weinstein, producer of progressive movies, was a sexual predator! And remember NBC News host Matt Lauer? I can't believe what he did!
And now Chris Matthews, "retiring" from his Hardball show! Apparently he was in the habit of making aggressively sexual comments to female guests while they were both in make-up. And, of course, Chris went off the reservation this weekend, politically speaking.
Oh. And Michael Bloomberg, he of the "kill it" to a pregnant female staffer at Bloomberg.
To tell the truth, all this has been a little surprising to me. The Weinstein thing exposed the utterly crude modus operandi of the corporate sexual predator. It was revolting to me on this level: why would you want to relate to a young woman on those terms: a quick champagne and caviar at a restaurant followed by a visit to the office and... stuff? And Matt Lauer and the remote door lock if he was in his office with a babe and didn't want to be disturbed. And so on.
I guess I'm a patsy, because for me, I want that soft look in a woman's eye before proceeding to the other stuff. Otherwise, for me, what's the point?
OK. I get that if you are an aggressive, ambitious man, then life is all about driving your enemy before you and hearing the lamentation of their women, then the more lamentation the better.
And I get that, for non-powerful people, you hold your grudge for years, and then when there is blood in the water, you strike! Otherwise, the blood in the water is yours.
But, of course, with my conceit that I have a strategic mind, I am thinking of the bigger picture.
Because, as I read the feminist movement, the original idea was that women had been held in purdah for centuries and only needed the right to vote and the right to work in order to "hear me roar" and all that rubbish.
And the idea of the sexual revolution and "choice" was to free women into a sexual life that was much more like men. They could have a sexual life without being stigmatized as whores. Etc.
How's that working out, girls?
I'd say that things are getting pretty clear, right about now.
First of all, women don't like the open-outcry life of the corporate career. Why?
Well, I like to explain that by saying that men have a Culture of Insult, which is attached to the male concept of honor, which is courage in battle. Thus, men are forever testing themselves and other men on the question of courage and got-what-it-takes.
And women have a Culture of Complaint, which is attached to the female concept of honor, which is chastity. Thus women are forever judging another women in their "Well I never" and their "I can't believe she..." remarks. They are rehearsing her chastity -- or lack of -- by which I mean the large sense of always being a Good Little Girl.
So, most women are just not going to want to dominate a meeting full of aggressive a--holes. And bid for a higher hiring salary. And women do not want to develop the toughness of telling a Harvey Weinstein or a Matt Lauer to "put that thing away if you don't want to eat bratwurst for lunch."
(Actually, men really love a woman with the ability to exchange one-liners. They love the challenge of it.)
And then the sexual revolution. Come on, girls. When are you going to admit to each other that it has been a disaster for women? Maybe there are a few women that love to mix it up with the guys. But I haven't met one. What women want is to be loved, and then when, in the fulness of time, she announces a future event she wants that man to melt in gratitude.
(I was watching the second half of Spartacus in memory of Kirk Douglas last night, and Kirk -- Spartacus -- did exactly the right thing for 1955 women when his slave wife made the announcement. Who knew that Roman slaves were good at this?)
But the sexual revolution makes it very hard for women to say no, and gets them very angry when they get dumped -- hello Mattress Girl -- and wounded forever when told to "get rid of it."
Hey! How about Emma Sulkowltz today: libertarian, reader of Jordan B. Peterson!
Thing is, I don't know what it is going to take to move the question of women in the public square to a mode that actually is comfortablle for women other than crazy feminist activists. That's because women don't do politics by open outcry, as per the Culture of Insult.
You can see why when you look at presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. People hate the aggressive woman trying to act like a man, trading insult for insult with the guys.
So, women trying to change the rules from female superheroes and a-career-for-every-woman and let-it-all-hang-out sexuality aren't going to do it with conferences and activism and funding from billionaires. Because that's not the way that the overwhelming majority of women interact with the world.
No. What will happen is lots of women networking together and talking to each other and agreeing with each other and "well I never-ing" the women that think otherwise and one fine day we will wake up and find that the culture has changed and nobody will know why.
Here's an example of how this works. Black women vote not just at the general election but in primaries almost in unison. How do they do this? Because black churches? Or because of the women's gossip network? You tell me.
Or maybe they will will make the change with one canceled progressive media a--hole at a time.
To think that Harvey Weinstein, producer of progressive movies, was a sexual predator! And remember NBC News host Matt Lauer? I can't believe what he did!
And now Chris Matthews, "retiring" from his Hardball show! Apparently he was in the habit of making aggressively sexual comments to female guests while they were both in make-up. And, of course, Chris went off the reservation this weekend, politically speaking.
Oh. And Michael Bloomberg, he of the "kill it" to a pregnant female staffer at Bloomberg.
To tell the truth, all this has been a little surprising to me. The Weinstein thing exposed the utterly crude modus operandi of the corporate sexual predator. It was revolting to me on this level: why would you want to relate to a young woman on those terms: a quick champagne and caviar at a restaurant followed by a visit to the office and... stuff? And Matt Lauer and the remote door lock if he was in his office with a babe and didn't want to be disturbed. And so on.
I guess I'm a patsy, because for me, I want that soft look in a woman's eye before proceeding to the other stuff. Otherwise, for me, what's the point?
OK. I get that if you are an aggressive, ambitious man, then life is all about driving your enemy before you and hearing the lamentation of their women, then the more lamentation the better.
And I get that, for non-powerful people, you hold your grudge for years, and then when there is blood in the water, you strike! Otherwise, the blood in the water is yours.
But, of course, with my conceit that I have a strategic mind, I am thinking of the bigger picture.
Because, as I read the feminist movement, the original idea was that women had been held in purdah for centuries and only needed the right to vote and the right to work in order to "hear me roar" and all that rubbish.
And the idea of the sexual revolution and "choice" was to free women into a sexual life that was much more like men. They could have a sexual life without being stigmatized as whores. Etc.
How's that working out, girls?
I'd say that things are getting pretty clear, right about now.
First of all, women don't like the open-outcry life of the corporate career. Why?
Well, I like to explain that by saying that men have a Culture of Insult, which is attached to the male concept of honor, which is courage in battle. Thus, men are forever testing themselves and other men on the question of courage and got-what-it-takes.
And women have a Culture of Complaint, which is attached to the female concept of honor, which is chastity. Thus women are forever judging another women in their "Well I never" and their "I can't believe she..." remarks. They are rehearsing her chastity -- or lack of -- by which I mean the large sense of always being a Good Little Girl.
So, most women are just not going to want to dominate a meeting full of aggressive a--holes. And bid for a higher hiring salary. And women do not want to develop the toughness of telling a Harvey Weinstein or a Matt Lauer to "put that thing away if you don't want to eat bratwurst for lunch."
(Actually, men really love a woman with the ability to exchange one-liners. They love the challenge of it.)
And then the sexual revolution. Come on, girls. When are you going to admit to each other that it has been a disaster for women? Maybe there are a few women that love to mix it up with the guys. But I haven't met one. What women want is to be loved, and then when, in the fulness of time, she announces a future event she wants that man to melt in gratitude.
(I was watching the second half of Spartacus in memory of Kirk Douglas last night, and Kirk -- Spartacus -- did exactly the right thing for 1955 women when his slave wife made the announcement. Who knew that Roman slaves were good at this?)
But the sexual revolution makes it very hard for women to say no, and gets them very angry when they get dumped -- hello Mattress Girl -- and wounded forever when told to "get rid of it."
Hey! How about Emma Sulkowltz today: libertarian, reader of Jordan B. Peterson!
Thing is, I don't know what it is going to take to move the question of women in the public square to a mode that actually is comfortablle for women other than crazy feminist activists. That's because women don't do politics by open outcry, as per the Culture of Insult.
You can see why when you look at presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. People hate the aggressive woman trying to act like a man, trading insult for insult with the guys.
So, women trying to change the rules from female superheroes and a-career-for-every-woman and let-it-all-hang-out sexuality aren't going to do it with conferences and activism and funding from billionaires. Because that's not the way that the overwhelming majority of women interact with the world.
No. What will happen is lots of women networking together and talking to each other and agreeing with each other and "well I never-ing" the women that think otherwise and one fine day we will wake up and find that the culture has changed and nobody will know why.
Here's an example of how this works. Black women vote not just at the general election but in primaries almost in unison. How do they do this? Because black churches? Or because of the women's gossip network? You tell me.
Or maybe they will will make the change with one canceled progressive media a--hole at a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment