Well it’s not true. I don’t hate women. Not even a little. I do have a major problem with the family court system because of its gross unfairness to men, but that’s really another topic. What I’m talking about is mainstream common parlance Feminism, and it’s devotees. It is, in my opinion, the single most destructive philosophy in America today.
One of the cornerstones of Feminism is the belief that absolutely anything bad that happens to a woman, simply isn’t her fault in any way. In that regard it treats all women like objects who can only be acted upon, rather than agents who act upon the world themselves. Here is a breathtaking example of that from today’s Slate:
And so we, the women of America, find ourselves watching in horror and rage as the repulsive sexual behavior of three pathetic men threatens to obstruct the election of a supremely capable first female president and her equally brilliant No. 2. It would be an extraordinary feat of poetic injustice if the most qualified female presidential candidate in history got within a nose hair’s breadth of the office just to be thwarted by a trio of men who’ve disrespected their marriages and prioritized their own sexual proclivities over their wives’ careers and ambitions.
Christina Cauterucci, a stunning (cough) example of Feminism’s “strong independent woman”, claims that it isn’t Hillary Clinton’s decades of malfeasance, incompetence, and coverups that has put her in this situation. No no. Not her shrill voice, her reputation for backbiting or her obvious contempt for the people she means to rule. Poor Hillary is simply the helpless victim here, and would have sailed on to glorious victory but for the acts of a few idiot men and their dicks.
This laughable claim wouldn’t be so bad if it were simply callous partisanship – one more Clinton hack writing whatever they have to in order to fool a few more rubes and lock in a few more swing state votes. On the contrary, I have no doubt that as a true believer in Feminism (complete with the requisite horribly androgynous dutch boy haircut) miss Cauterucci actually believes this hysterical bile. And this isn’t some ranting from the feverswamp of the women’s studies department, this is a staff writer at a major opinion journal that prides itself on it’s journalistic ‘credibility’.
Of course, I would rather hear Feminist excuses than be ordered at gunpoint to adhere to Feminist dogma. I’m sure you all remember all those university speeches I posted from Karen Straughan where any male participant, before asking his question, had to divest himself of his ‘white male heterosexual privilege’ before speaking. I won’t ever say words like those, and will continue to instantly lose respect for any man who does. And when the heavily armed minions of the ‘Secretary of Sexism prevention” are putting the rope around my neck, my last words from the gallows will be “white male privilege is a fantasy you hopeless despicable whores”. But that’s just me. Clearly most men don’t feel so strongly about it.
For example, in Ohio yesterday Obama came right out with the statement that says it all about male Feminists and the relative moral position of women in relation to men: “And we have to ask ourselves, as men — because I hope my daughters are going to be able to achieve anything they want to achieve — and I know that my wife is not just my equal but my superior,”
That’s it. That’s what Feminists want from men. They want us to admit that they are morally superior to us, and to grant them the authority to morally arbitrate our every action. If you’re comfortable with a statement like that, then I would argue it can only be because you don’t know any women.
I have to give him credit for one thing in that speech though. Obama made one statement, in a typically male way, that relies on his direct personal experience and is backed up by much in the way of objective evidence:
"The only thing this office does is it amplifies who you are. It magnifies who you are. It shows who you are." he said.
So Obama, with his deep envy of white people and his Chicago style of using any means to sow political division, and his time in the Whitehouse turned him into even more of a racial partisan. That in turn turned his justice department into a racially motivated ‘injustice department’ that will go to any length to preserve the power of him and his party – even obstructing an investigation which it’s reported that hundreds of agents at the FBI were prepared to resign over. That makes sense to me.
If that’s true, and I believe it is, then what in the world will the Federal government look like when it’s run by Hillary Clinton - a longtime Feminist true believer who feels as strongly as the Slate staff writers, that everything bad that's ever happened to her, was the fault of men and their penises?
Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t need any of this. He isn’t doing it to get power, or fame, he already has plenty of both. He has no stake in preserving the structure of the state or the multitudes of sycophantic incompetent do nothings that cling to anyone with political power. He has no deep positions on the minutiae of making the government serve a million tiny fractions of interest groups that participated in it’s design over the last 50 years. He’s motivated only by the overly broad idea of an America that is serving Americans.
If Obama is right in this, and I think he almost certainly is, then I would argue that someone like Trump is precisely who we want in the Whitehouse.