Is there anything as silly as hating the opposite sex? You know, men who think all women are lying whores or women who think all men are lying womanizers. Surely you've heard people of both sexes make similar claims about the other sex.
It's an unthinking form of collectivism to make such a sweeping generalization -- and one easily refuted by thinking up examples of honest men or women. But still, there are sad souls who go through life burdened by the premise that the other sex is the enemy. It's a cynical idea that can only lead to unhappiness and failure.
The idea comes when people get hurt by a lover -- and who has not felt the pangs of unrequited love, or worse, betrayal? The pain can be devastating. I've known men who are otherwise rational and sane sent temporarily out of their mind by a cheating wife. We're talking about intense passion here, the stuff of drama.
In this time of great suffering people often make the big mistake: they generalize from their loved one to the entire sex. They don't think, "X lied to me," they think, "All women are lying bitches like X." It does not occur to them that a sample of one is hardly enough to leap to conclusions about all men or women.
The phenomenon is complicated by feminism. Consistent feminists hold men as the enemy. Feminism, like many New Leftist ideologies, is a form of egalitarianism. Throughout history men have had power and privilege; women have been stuck with child raising and fixing dinner. It's not fair and the greater freedom women have been afforded by the end of feudalism and the rise of capitalism is all to the good.
You can see feminist assumptions in movies, TV and literature, though not often explicitly. The implicit message of feminist stories is that men are bad. Men are the enemy. Men are a necessary evil with which women must cope. There is no "masculinist" school of art that stereotypes women as the enemy; such stories would be unegalitarian, therefore they are unthinkable by the New Left.
I've been surprised to observe that women who support Hillary Clinton make a wholly feminist argument. They don't talk about the policy differences between Clinton and Obama -- it would take a subtle mind to find them. The women I have talked to have focused exclusively on the "sexual politics" aspect. They talk about how "the old boy network" decided Obama was their man. One Democrat woman complained to me about Obama's condescending body language around women.
"Women Push Back in Support of Clinton" shows the typical thinking of Clinton's female supporters:
Debra Starks has heard the calls for Hillary Rodham Clinton to quit the presidential race, and she's not happy about it.
The 53-year old Wal-Mart clerk, so bedecked with Clinton campaign buttons most days that friends call her "Button Lady," thinks sexism is playing a role in efforts to push the New York senator from the race. Starks wants Clinton to push back.
...
"Women have always been asked to step aside if it was somehow for the greater good. In this case, Clinton, and a lot of her female supporters, clearly feel that she would make the better president and that it would not be for the greater good for her to step aside," Wilson said.
It's hard for feminists to get beyond sex. One might want Clinton to step down because of her high negatives or her "baggage" of scandals past. Clinton's strange memory, which shows her to be either a liar or out of touch with reality, is reason enough not to support her. I won't even mention Clinton's statism, as Democrats would admire that. With Democrat women, the only thing that matters is that Clinton is a woman and her opponent is a man. (Is it any wonder that liberals often seem unintelligent to us non-liberals? Their ideological premises that reduce everything to biological collectivism make liberals stupid.)
Republicans should not enjoy the spectacle of the Democrat Party being torn apart by multicultural tribalism, not when biological collectivism is held as an ideal and indoctrinated to our children in government schools. Tribalism threatens to tear apart Western Civilization. The Obama-Clinton clash between race and sex is a canary in the coal mine.
Individualism is the antidote to all forms of collectivism. Every individual man and woman chooses his character. No one's character is determined by his sexual identity. Those who get burned in the pursuit of love must make the extra effort to think rationally and well. Hasty generalizations about men and women infect a mind with crude collectivism.
4 comments:
When Bill Clinton was president and had sex with “that woman,” Monica Lewinsky, his intern, and the Republicans went after him on this issue, the feminists came out in defense of Clinton. These same feminists championed legislation that would make it “sexual harassment” if, say, a boss merely dated his secretary or some other female subordinate, particularly his intern. But the most powerful political man in the world—you know, the guy who would support sexual harassment legislation and pull to get it enacted—well, he apparently he was exempt.
For me, that was when feminist showed itself bare.
The feminists' defense of Clinton is what drove the lesbian Tammy Bruce away from the left.
"No one's character is determined by his sexual identity." As a fag who loathes gay collectivism, I say amen to that.
"With Democrat women, the only thing that matters is that Clinton is a woman..."
To all Democrat women? or, is that a hasty generalization?
Not all Democrat women, but to many of the ones supporting Hillary Clinton.
Post a Comment