“The First Woman To Do It, The 438th Person To Do It.”

Man and woman are not enemies.

Translating “Fatherless Brooklyn”

with one comment

Fatherless Brooklyn

by Jean Railla

 

“Angie Lieber sat in front of the Gorilla Café in Park Slope, Brooklyn, talking to a new friend whom she had met through her parents’ synagogue. Both single moms by choice, they conversed easily, swapping breastfeeding stories and comparing pediatrician notes.  (‘Single mom’ is a euphemism meant to muddy meaning, normalize, provide cover, as if words could hide consequences. And ‘by choice’ is a euphemism meaning ’by FAIL.’  And they’re doing what women have done for 10,000 years.  The more they claim change the more they stay the same.)  Soon they moved to heavier stuff: the decision to become pregnant without a partner, and the complications of getting impregnated by an anonymous donor.  (‘Partner’ as a word choice is divisive and separating and minimizing, and it’s the reason men don’t want to stick around, even if they don’t realize it.  Maximize men!  People are transmitting ideas and verbiage like viruses they don’t even realize they have.)  As the afternoon slipped by, the women shared a truly post-modern epiphany: their daughters were half-sisters. Incredibly, they had both had selected sperm from the same man. (What kind of Franken-science got us to this point?)

 

‘The coincidence is freakish, but the underlying story speaks to the growing number of women who are choosing to have children outside of marriage.   (AKA fail.  And let’s use some euphemisms and let’s gloss over it and let’s make it empowering and let’s make failure a success. )  In 2004, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 36% of babies in the United States were born to unwed mothers. (If it’s a white girl she’s ‘unwed’.  Write it so she sounds like she a victim of someone not wedding her.  And if someone tries to use the active voice and put a dab of responsibility on her shoulders call it ‘blaming the victim.’  If the words make her feel good then the cold reality won’t have to make her feel bad.)  In cities like New York, the number is close to 50%. (Cause NYC ladies love the intercourse.)  A significant percentage of these single moms were not stereotypical disadvantaged teenagers, for whom child-raising would be a deep financial burden, nor high-powered executives, who could easily absorb child-care and other costs, but rather typical middle-class working women.  (FAIL has now reached all demographics, good news!  If we just change the verbiage then everything is great.  The children aren’t bastards they’re a lifestyle choice. And having a child is no longer the epitome of disadvantage or a messed up life, now that women can do no wrong it’s a-ok.  And who needs dads?  They’re just assholes who make you go to bed early.)  This new breed of single moms make their decision to have children neither as a grand political statement nor as a last resort, but because they don’t want to miss out on the emotional experience of giving birth and raising children.  (“Panic, selfishness and narcissism.  THAT’S who your father is honey.”)

 

‘For Angie, the single mom from Brooklyn, motherhood has always been a priority. As she explains, “My yearning for a child ran so deep I didn’t wait to get married.” (That is such twisted logic you can hear the desperation in it.  Sophistry and sour grapes to cover up past failings will not help you here.)   And while there were men she could have said yes to, she didn’t feel like any of them were good marriage — or father — material. (Bids for her golden vagina weren’t high enough.)  One month after her thirty-seventh birthday she visited a sperm bank — as she puts it, “the ultimate shopping experience.” (And we all know shopping is the most important thing to shallow women.  So this really is a compliment.)  She chose one of the few Jewish donors she could find, and was inseminated. Her daughter is now twenty months old.   (And isn’t old enough yet to wonder where her dad is.)

 

‘When asked about the hardships of raising her daughter by herself, Angie starts by saying: “Most single women are people who are comfortable with pushing through things. They don’t fall to pieces. I’m comfortable being and doing things alone.” (AKA: I’ve been alone so long I’m used to it.  Instead of cats all over the house I’ve got a bunch of babies.  How different are the two really?)  That said, the challenge is not so much the lack of a partner — although she’d like to fall in love and get married. (Maybe if I’m really passive about it and seem as bland as possible, a man will drop everything and marry me and my child.)  Rather it’s the bills. Between daycare, rent, clothes and daily living expenses, there is very little money left over at the end of the month. As she puts it, “I knew it would be a financial hardship, but I chose to have a child over an expendable income.” Her “ultimate shopping trip” would, as it turns out, be one of her last for the foreseeable future.  (Why can’t a man come along and pay for everything?  Life just isn’t fair!)

 

‘As for needing a husband, observing the marriages around her, many with women doing the bulk of childrearing, Angie wonders how helpful it would ultimately be. “There are very few times that I think to myself: ‘I need a man.’ (Obviously you need a man:  you insist on being in this article and you keep mentioning you want a man.  You crave attention and you’re sad a man hasn’t been as taken by you as you are by your self.)  Mostly it’s when I’m faced with the cost of nursery school.” (I’m a whore that needs money.  Daddy?  Are you around?)  However, she still sometimes wants a partner. “The reality is that I have emotional needs, and I’d like to be in love, to have security, someone to grow old with.”  (You’re already old, you can check that off your To-Do List.  Do you have anything to offer a man at this point?  I guess men ought to be more selfless and marry you as a tax write or something?)

 

‘”There has been a sea change in how single moms are viewed,” says Louise Sloan, author of the book Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom, herself a single mom by choice.  (That’s not true actually.  Everyone is talking about you behind your back whilst you have your little sea change.)   Whereas social stigma may have dissuaded women even a decade ago, such censure is increasingly uncommon today.  (That’s a lie of convenience.  We still joke about you behind your back.  And as usual you do nothing out of ethics or morality, you do it according to social opinion.  You are a moral boat adrift.)  While it is generally agreed that divorce, as well as an unhappy marriage, can damage a child’s sense of well-being, a 1997 study conducted by Cornell University found little or no evidence of negative academic or behavior effects on the children of single moms. (Right.  Jail and pole dancing are filled with Masters Degrees and happy people.)  With donor insemination easier than ever and Generation X devastated by their own parents’ unhappy marriages, the trend towards single parenthood will most likely continue to increase in the future.  (Yeah, a marriage strike will really show those men who’s boss.  Men will just have to content themselves with banging 23 year old girls looking for a father figure.  To bad these single Moms will have to do their thing with no one paying attention.  Will their tree still make a sound if no one is there to hear it?)

 

‘Beth Saidel, a university administrator, never dreamed of becoming a single mother.  (No one dreams of being a failure and then being interviewed about it in an attempt for attention.)  “When I was younger,” she says, “I did not think I would have to choose between being a mother and having a partner.” (Younger, as in 23 or 35 or 42.)  When, at forty-four, she found herself dating a man who didn’t want kids, she went through an intense period of self-evaluation, deciding that having a child was more important to her than being with a man.   (Oh whoops!  She found herself dating him!  Oh goodness, who puts this man here!  Not her fault!)  She was told her chances of conceiving were slim because of her advanced age, conception becomes much harder after forty, and other health issues. (She wasn’t told this until 44, somehow that information didn’t make its way to her desk until then.)  Undeterred, she was successfully inseminated on her first try. (Romantic.  This is what the poets have sung songs to for so many generations.)  Nine months later she gave birth to her son, Oliver.

 

‘”It takes a college to raise a child,” was the toast raised to Beth by her colleagues at Barnard University. (This strange non sequiter is so rich in such a variety of ways.  All women’s school, prime suspect of all those worst clichés, stereotypes and suspicions.  Feminists wouldn’t be accused of seeming like lesbians if they didn’t act the part so much.  That poor child.  What?  What about him?)  Fortunately for their little family, the university provides exceptional daycare and flexible hours for working parents, and Oliver is welcome in this progressive work environment. (We didn’t take the woman out of the kitchen, we brought the kitchen to the workplace.  Must be great for productivity.)  In addition, Beth lives in a large apartment complex in the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan, which has a great community vibe. “The truth is, I have tremendous support in my life,” says Beth, who continues to lead an active social life, albeit one with toddler in tow.  (Oh thank goodness, we mustn’t spare the active social life.  That’s what got her the fulfilling life she was seeking in the first place.)

 

‘It had never occurred to Kimberly Forrest to get married or have children until she turned forty, when she started to feel a stirring for the sort of intimacy and fulfillment she noticed in parent-child relationships. (Wow, she stayed a virgin until 40?  And she never noticed all those people around her as well?  No need for human companionship?  That’s strange but go for it girl!)  A writer living in a tiny apartment in the West Village with a stray pit bull mix named Fanny and a bevy of friends and interests, she explains, “It wasn’t so much that my life felt empty, quite the opposite, but I started seriously considering that I might want more.” (Snarkiness aside, a family is a meaningful situation.  There are lifestyles that are shallow and ones that are more profound.  Why not go for profound right from the start?  Why does the shallow lifestyle appeal so much?)  Then, two weeks after her forty-first birthday, and five months after she had begun dating her personal trainer, she discovered she was pregnant.   (Passive voice again, not to nitpick.)  “I never considered not having this baby,” explains Kimberly, currently nearing the end of her pregnancy. (Horrible Christians!  Always letting their beliefs get in the way!)  Nor did she consider matrimony. “Getting married, at this point, would feel desperate. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to bring my daughter into that sort of arrangement.”  (Word.  Why stop at desperate, when you could have desperate, cornered, victimized, and struggling all at once?)

 

‘”Of course, I’m scared,” says Kimberly, “But I feel like I have a lot of support.” (No one judges her.  Not even to her face.)  While Kimberly is carrying the brunt of pregnancy and hospital costs, she was uninsured at the time of conception, Luis, the baby’s father, is attending childbirth and parenting classes, and plans on being involved in his daughter’s life, both financially and emotionally. (As long as she wants him to be and if she says stop it’s rape and if he decides not to be then she can sue for backing payments.  So needless to say, he plans on being involved.)  Her friends are pitching in, coming to OB/GYN appointments, throwing her a baby shower, and planning on coordinated daily visits once the baby is born. (Uck, the whole neighborhood has to cluck around in a panic all because she couldn’t keep her legs closed.  And you wonder why progressives hate breeders so much.  One woman’s crises is an entire neighborhood’s problem.)  Luis’s mother has been organizing a second baby shower for the couple. (Everyone will bend to little Kimmy’s will.  You want me to marry your son?  Leave me alone, I’m pregnant!)  Even Kimberly’s own parents, whose conservative Christian values don’t exactly jibe with the idea of a single woman raising a child on her own, are pitching in.  (Even those fucking assholes are putting down their bullshit superstitions for a few minutes to throw their daughter a bone.  Even those fucking morons with their magical bearded old men in the sky.)  And while her apartment is a tiny walk-up, leaving the city is not an option. “This neighborhood is where my people are, where I have all my support, my friends and my neighbors. I’d rather die than move to the suburbs.” (Backspace that – she’d rather her baby die than move to the suburbs.  From pollution, crime, small apartments that will stunt their growth, and sideswiping taxis.)  Besides, Clare, Kimberly’s elderly next door neighbor, would be crushed if the new mom and baby left the building.  (Are you serious?  The buck stops with Clare?  She’s of a higher consideration than Dad and the dead baby?)

 

‘Knock Yourself Up author Louise Sloan makes a distinction between single moms by choice, donor or adopted babies, and single moms by accident like Kimberly, although I believe the differences are minor. (Uh oh, bitches be getting an opinion about each other and be getting’ all bitchy yo.)  While in the distorted universe of movies like Knocked Up, the word abortion is never muttered, in the real world, particularly among the urban middle class, ending a pregnancy is always a viable option, much more so than marrying someone whom you either don’t know well enough or don’t particularly want as a life partner.   (Yeah when a man creates the narrative babies get to live.  When women create the narrative babies get their shit chopped up like cabbage in a cole slaw.  The urban middle class will put an end to that life, watch out!)  And while adoption and donor insemination require more money and planning, every single mom, at some level, is making a choice.  (Women have lost the plot so bad, they will spend $100,000 to get pregnant and then go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion.  They’re not even sure why.)

 

‘Indeed, what is truly remarkable about this single mom trend is that women are refusing to either give up having children or settle down into an unhappy marriage. (That’s the spirit, start the idea of marriage with how rotten it is.  Then say how awesome it is that gay people are doing it.  There are many ‘truly remarkable’ things in these ladies’ ideas.)  They are, in essence, saying: “I want the job, the career, and the power that comes with all that, but I also want to experience domestic joys — of raising a child and connecting to something larger than myself — and if I can’t find a partner, I’ll do it anyway, even though it will most likely mean a substantial economic burden.” (That’s a mouthful.  Sounds exactly the way their brain must echo and rattle and race and binge eat.  Notice the children are hardly mentioned in the article.  These poor kids are in some deep trouble.  And their job equals power?  I thought a job equaled black lung disease.  Ladies love power, way to contribute to the greater society…)  It comes down to this: women have built strong networks of friends and support systems independently of marriage. (AKA the lesbian revolution.)  They no longer have to settle for partners who, for whatever reason, lack suitable qualities. In a strange twist of the old standard, contemporary men may simply not be “marriage material.”   (Oh is that what this is?  It’s not a panic at the age of 40, its men who are assholes for banging 23 year olds with no commitment instead of marrying their leathery ass.  That’s rich.)

 

‘Rather than pine for Prince Charming, single women are using the skills they have developed from over a decade of working, socializing and building their lives to create a new idea of family.  (Mom, Dad, the government, and your lesbian friends: the new Husband!)  It would be an oversight to say that single moms by choice are soldiers for some gender cause, but there is something truly progressive about women taking a stand for the domestic, for children and the joy parenting brings to your life, even if it means giving up some of the benefits of being single without gaining the financial and emotional advantages of marriage.  (You’re not an Old maid you’re a revolutionary!  Yesterday’s fail is today’s succeed!)  And while they are indeed raising children without husbands or partners in the traditional sense, they are not raising their families alone. Now that one can shop for sperm, as one would a pair of Louboutins, and social pressure for shotgun marriages is on the decline, women are finding that they are “doing it for themselves.” Maybe this is the real revolution.   (Quick!  Quick!  Summarize a profound change in civil society with a little pop culture catch phrase!  You go girl!)”

 

End Thoughts:

Everything women do is now empowering, perfect and awesome.  Do not question!

The need for male attention is still there, that’s why they’re being interviewed.  As a substitute.

Why do I care?  Well, as with all propaganda, they’re asking me to change my mind to match their’s uncritically.  Well I have some questions before I sign on, sorry to be a pain.

Why do I care?  I care the same way I would if I saw a Mom beating her child at the grocery store or if I saw a kid kicking a dog.  I see a lack of truth, so my smooth gets wrinkled I guess…

Everyone knows this is a bunch of nonsense and everyone knows they’d rather have a husband and everyone knows they’re lying here.  That’s all I’m saying.

Yesterday’s failure is today’s success!

There is no counterpoint to this article, no voice of dissent, no disagreement.  What a nice utopia.

Written by Common Sense

January 18, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Posted in Good News

Advice For Single Men

leave a comment »

1) Women are giving and nurturing, so if you’re not going to appreciate that, take advantage of it and try to manipulate women into giving you oral sex in a bathroom of a club and anal sex on the first and only night you’re with her.

2) Women are sensitive, fragile and need protecting, so if you aren’t going to protect them, take advantage of your role and exploit the security you provide.  Be the secret service agent that assisinates the president, so to speak.  Protect her from others and then compromise her weak borders.

3) Women like to please people, so if you’re not going to cherish that, fuck her hard like a man would fuck another man and then 15 minutes later do it again to another woman.  If you’re not going to cherish that, exploit it to your advantage and get her to do things to you way before it’s normally time to.  Get her to please you the way she would please the people she loves.

4) Women are giving, so take full advantage of that by hiring her and making her work long hours.  Give her a lot of work to do, overload her.  Don’t pay her very much.  And keep her isolated so she won’t complain.  Exploit her insecurity and her general inability to speak up in her own defense.

5) Turn her strengths into your advantage.

6) Turn her into a robot – and then replace her with a robot.

7) Dump her when she no longer serves a purpose.  Once she’s no longer fuckable, and provides nothing beyond that, find someone who now is.

8 ) Have sex with a woman but don’t go to her funeral if she dies at some unrelated point in the future.

Written by Common Sense

June 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Posted in Good News

Affirmations

leave a comment »

-A man is excellent, competent, risk-taking and risk-achieving.  He doesn’t ask, he doesn’t cue, he doesn’t wait.

-I don’t consider all sides, I’m not aware of other people.  I’m too busy getting stuff done and getting it done right, and getting it done right the first time.

-I’m too busy being excellent to worry about if everyone feels included.

-There is no such entity as “Men.”  There are, in fact, a loose confederation of lone wolves.  Self-centered, singular, narrowly focused executors.  Stay out of their way, let them do their thing, get the glory alongside them.

-Man makes a lot of noise, seemingly unnecessary noise at that.  Excellent noise.

-There is no ‘level playing field.’  There never was.  You get in there and you fight with your jaws and your claws.  Grab ahold of a good old boy and ride that rocket.

-I walk around with a hard-on all day.  A hard-on to myself.

-Perhaps I sound strange to the outside ear, but I’m too busy doing excellent things to worry about that.  Self-reflection is a distraction.

-Don’t distract me with tales of caution and self-reflection and worries and housework.  Encourage and prime my flights of great height.  Encourage me, milk me, rev me up, move me.  Inspire me.

-Inspire me, tittilate me.  Make me trudge through 4 miles of snowy terrain to get to you.

-In the make believe, intellectualized mind-world, might doesn’t make right.  In the real world of reality, contary to what you may want, might makes right.  Maybe it doesn’t make right, but it does get things done.

-To be attractive to my woman, I don’t have to worry about her feelings or know what she thinks.  I have to build buildings and walk tall and make the most money and wind up on the moon.  Neil Armstrong was too busy standing on the moon to help out around the house.  And his wife is ok with that, she loves it.

-I’m inconsiderate, self-centered, unaware of the people around me, and by extension I am excellent.  I’m narrow-focused, with a laser hot intensity.  And that’s why I get things done.

-Yes: Excellence, perfection, virtue, quality, honor, competence.

-Man doesn’t wait for self-help therapy, he is his own self-help.  He is his own therapy.  There’s no hurt that accomplishment can’t fix.

-I don’t need a therapist.  Big money and a meaningful life heals all wounds.

-A young man should be taught excellence.  They should be encouraged to kick ass. That solves all problems, in the present and the future.  A boy should be a man ASAP.

-I fart and burp and follow my muse and make things out of excellence and do it with competence.  I am competent to stand trial.  I huff and puff and make noise and challenge others to display and therefore assume my dominance.  I test my limits because I’m compelled to.  I gamble and I win.

-Left to their own devices, man does not censor himself or ask permission or wait or any of that.  He’s too busy building awesome stuff.

-Man’s whole life is to be pointed towards building awesome stuff.  Anything that’s not awesome is not in his interest.  His woman should tickle his excellence and then ride that rocket to glory.  Tickle me, stimulate me, focus me, point me, encourage me, ride me.

-Do the excellent things and don’t do the muddled things.  Don’t muddle up my brain with mundane business.  No busy work, or mopping or room cleaning.  Just excellence.

-Saying I am excellent makes it so.  I say, I demand it, I defend it.  It originates from within and if I choose to squish down others for my own purposes it is their own responsibility to defend themselves.  I will not have a weak offense because I sense their weak defense.  I will not throw the game.

-I don’t need a government to do much more than pick up the garbage and stop people from invading.  My world won’t fall apart if the government’s did.  I’m not waiting for them, I’m already kicking ass.

-I’m a man and I have a lot of money and I can buy the entire bar a drink.  That edges on hyperbole, but I’m a man and hyperbole is what raises my sails.  I don’t save money, I make money.

-Man needs quiet and a singular sense of purpose.  Man can’t concentrate on the excellent task at hand with all this low-energy nutrition dirtying up the water.  Admittedly it’s hard to perform surgery when you’re in Grand Central.

-I am tireless and I am a hard worker.  I am a man and I build rockets that land people on the moon.

-There should be no multi-culturalism, only one culture of Excellence.  No diversity of past history only one forward moving culture of goals dreams and progress.  Don’t tolerate trouble, fix it with awesome.

-Don’t ask me to care about babies in Africa.  Stop cluttering my mind.  Left alone, a man could probably invent something excellent that would accidentally cure starvation in Africa.

-The past 40 years has been a time of noise, muddiness, impotence, dissonance, lack of responsibility.  It’s time for someone to shut all the noise out and take the reins: a man. 

-Clarity.  Single-mindedness.  Action.  Quick and correct decision.  Simplicity and black & white determination. Common sense.

-Man is compelled to act, his fighting spirit moves from within and he cannot help himself.

-Say it and it can be so.  Reach for it, imagine it, fight for it, work towards it.  Man can do anything.  He can take  the idea above his head and reach for it.  Nothing is out of reach.  Excellence begets further excellence.  Do not be realistic.  Start from the Ivory Tower and go out from there.

-Reality is not something to be aware of, reality is something to create.

-Man is not depressed because he creates his own reality.  If something is broken, man fixes it.  Man transforms the world around him.  All man does is change his situation.  He creates it, he visualizes it’s potential, he sees the standard realized in other man’s greatness, he supercedes that greatness. 

-Man does it first, man does it right, man executes with excellence.

-Man would never tolerate litter, failing schools, nonsense.  It’s in those cracks that evil happens.

-Testosterone needs to act alone to be effective.  And it IS effective.  It does not do well with leadership by commitee.  Left alone it is potent, effective, competent, agressive, competitive and victorious.

-“Man.”  That is the only Element that will accomplish anything, the only atom.  Only man can get down to business.  Only Man can do something and only masculinity can be appealed to to fix things.

-Competence.  Virtue.  Excellence. Potency.

-Don’t focus on the worst of us, be a beacon to work towards.  Be a beacon for others to emulate.  Ignore others, make them look at you.  Don’t focus on them, allow them to focus on you.

-You cannot stifle man, you cannot repress him.  We need no subsidies and we are not afraid of any violence against us as we have come to expect it as part of the path towards excellence.

-Man does not treat anyone as his equal, male or female.  No one is his equal.

-A man intimidates and dominates, and expects the same from the world around him.

-Peace happens when man exhausts himself, not when he stifles himself.

-Man is cartoonishly competent.

-Left alone, Man is awesome.  When distracted, we ignore it and go towards awesome.

-Be a beacon of how to do it right.

-I am an individual, unique, a man.  I belong to no tribe.

-Don’t be ‘realistic’ and don’t do your best.  Strive for perfect and do better than your best.

Written by Common Sense

May 22, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Posted in Good News

Live-Blogging The New York Times And The Hillary Clinton

leave a comment »

Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton’s Hopes Dim
By JODI KANTOR

With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit.

(Passivity.  The presidency HAPPENS to her, perhaps as a reward for the great outfits.)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now in what most agree are the waning days of her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To use her own phrase, she has been running “to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life, and now the presidency — even a nomination that once seemed to be hers to claim — seems out of reach.

(Maybe she failed because she was focused on an external glass ceiling while ignoring the internal glass ceiling.  And also making this majestic run in a political fashion, and doing it for ‘all women,’ and taking on more than she could take on.  Trying to change the world has a high failure rate, it’s a poorly conceived concept and a bit epic. Try a cuckoo idea, and then blame others when it predictably fails.)

Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.

(Somehow the ladies get to have an ‘incomplete triumph’ when for men that would be an oxymoron and unacceptable.  But being the 438th person to attempt something still gets press somehow.  Somehow Dennis Kucinich’s run doesn’t get such a post-mortem.  And ‘a depressing reminder of why few pursue…” sound victimized, sounds whiny, sounds entitled and guess what?  Being a presidential candidate is hard.  Want equality?  Men play rough.)

The answers have immediate political implications. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?

(Man, somebody’s a sore loser.  Somebody’s taking their ball and bat and going home.  Yet again “discrimination” happened to Hill-Hill.  Non sequiter, out-of-nowhere discrimination.  She sets up the dominoes of nonsense, shrillness and line-cutting and the voters react.  Somehow though it’s seen as an act, within a vacuum.  The voters were just randomly picking on her, yep-oh.)

“Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”

(“Women felt…”  That’s all the jurisdiction they need to get upset.  They felt it, so it is so.  If they feel like they didn’t mean to crash their car into the fire hydrant then it didn’t happen either.  “Women felt…” is the wildcard that justifies everything.  It justifies all the rage and the emotional decisions and the revenge.  Oh, and through in the external “sexism” to explain away all agency and personal responsibility in the matter.  “All I know is I’m upset!” is a phrase I’ve heard before.  That “…all I know…” takes away all complexity, all serious discussion, all counterpoint.)

Not everyone agrees. “When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her,” the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said in an interview. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is faltering, she added, because of “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”

(This is thrown in as a token, a straw-man (sorry, straw woman) they will take down in the next paragraph or so.  Even though it’s a good point, the novelty of her sex rocketed her further along than if she had gone without.)

As a former first lady whose political career evolved from her husband’s, Mrs. Clinton was always an imperfect test case for female achievement — “somebody’s wife,” as Elaine Kamarck, a professor of government at Harvard and a Clinton supporter, described her.

(Hey, “somebody’s wife” is a pretty good place to begin.  It kind of reaffirms the “if you want to be with a general you have to marry a private.”  It’s a similar process.)

Still, many credit Mrs. Clinton with laying down a new marker for what a woman can accomplish in a campaign — raising over $170 million, frequently winning more favorable reviews on debate performances than her male rivals, rallying older women, and persuading white male voters who were never expected to support her.

(This is some combination of changing the goals of the game after the fact.  First you wanted to be president, now you get an award for trying anyway.  First you had to go 100 yards to the goal – now whatever achievement is waiting for you at the 75 yard line is equally awesome!  Combine the 75 Yard Award with some sour grapes thrown at the original goal line – either that award is stupid, not worth the price to get to, or silly boy stuff that’s stupid anyway.  The ladies love to hate on stuff that’s hard for them to get to.  Say the word “manliness” to yourself and think of the giggles it elicits.)

“She’s raised this whole woman candidate thing to a whole different level than when I ran,” said Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter and the first woman to be the vice-presidential nominee of a major party, contrasting her own brief stint as a running mate in 1984 with Mrs. Clinton’s 17-month-and-counting slog.

(Be the 438th person to ever do something and you’re the Man all of a sudden.  But in celebrating a second place finish or in prefacing yourself a “woman candidate” you’re exhibiting qualities that do not make a good president.  Celebrating your asterisk is what begets your 2nd tier status.  Sorry, these are not my rules I just follow them.  Lots of people have run for president unsuccessfully.  Where’s Alan Keyes’ article in the NYT?)

Ms. Goodwin and others say Mrs. Clinton was able to convert the sexism she faced on the trail into votes and donations, extending the life of a candidacy that suffered a serious blow at the Iowa caucuses. Like so many women before, she was heckled (in New Hampshire, a few men told her to iron their shirts) and called nasty names (“How do we beat the bitch?” Senator John McCain was asked at one campaign event).

(Yeah!  Play the victim and gain empowerment from it!  And there you go again wearing the pair of spectacles named “sexism.”  Every action that occurs gets looks at through those spectacles, all legitimate concerns will be seen and remolded with those spectacles.  Oh and rumor is, those hecklers in NH were plants to gain HRC some favor in the night’s news cycle.  As if a man has never been heckled whilst onstage.  This campaign stuff is hard!  Oh did I just heckle?)

But the response may have been more powerful than the injury. In the days after Mrs. Clinton was criticized for misting up on the campaign trail, she won the New Hampshire primary and drew a wave of donations, many from women expressing indignation about how she had been treated.

(Exactly.  Mission accomplished.)

And Mrs. Clinton seemed to channel the lives of regular women, who often saw her as an avenging angel. Take Judith Henry, 67, for whom Mrs. Clinton’s primary losses stirred decades-old memories of working at a phone company where women were not allowed to hold management positions. “They always gave us the clerical jobs and told us we didn’t have families to support,” she said. At a rally last month in Bloomington, Ind., she sat with her daughter Susan Henry, 45, a warehouse worker, who complained that her male colleagues did less work and made more money than the women did.

(So being qualified isn’t A-Number-One for lady voters?  Stirring up old memories is?  That’s a more sexist statement than anything a man could put forward.  This whole paragraph is baiting.  The whole statement is misty.)

Decades after the dissolution of movement feminism, Mrs. Clinton’s events and donor lists filled with women who had experienced insult or isolation on the job. Moitri Chowdhury Savard, 36, a doctor in Queens, was once asked by a supervisor why she was not home cooking for her husband; Liz Kuoppala, 37, of Eveleth, Minn., worked as the only woman in her mining crew and is now the only woman on the City Council.

(So revenge is the foundation of Clinton’s support?  And why are women so obsessed with work and jobs?  Is feminism’s legacy to make people even more cog-like than they had been previously?  Great, thanks feminism!)

Ms. Kamarck, 57, the Harvard professor and a longtime adviser to Democratic candidates, said she was still incredulous about the time her colleagues on Walter F. Mondale’s presidential campaign, all men, left for lunch without inviting her — because, she later discovered, they were headed to a strip club.

(OK, this is the third paragraph in a row about complaints and more complaints.  This article is getting sidetracked into a clucking session, stop being the caricature you get accused of being.  If it’s any consolation, Mondale lost.  You’re probably glad he did too, I’ll bet.)

Janet Napolitano, the Democratic governor of Arizona, said the world was different now, especially the political world, thanks in part to Mrs. Clinton. “I never heard anybody say she can’t be elected because she’s a woman,” said Ms. Napolitano, who supports Mr. Obama and like many of his supporters saw less sexism in the race than Mrs. Clinton’s backers. “That’s a different deal than we’ve heard before in American politics.”

(“I never heard anybody say she can’t be elected because she’s a woman,” says Janet Napolitano.  But in her defense, I’ll bet she wouldn’t hear it even if it was said.  Since you aren’t allowed to criticize Teh Ladiez, all legitimate critique gets shouted down.  Just an observation.)

But as others watched a campaign that starred two possibly transformative figures, they felt a growing conviction that the contest was unfair. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters point to a nagging series of slights: the fixation on her clothes, even her cleavage; chronic criticism that her voice is shrill; calls for her to exit the race; and most of all, the male commentators in the news media who, they argue, were consistently tougher on her than on Mr. Obama.

(The press let her stay in the race way longer than she should have been given the spotlight.  That was the press’s doing to keep ratings high.  Sorry.  And while it’s a fact that her supporters do say these things, are the things they say also factual?  It’s a fact that Bush says the war is going well, but the idea that the war is going well is the antithesis of fact.  This is a damn long article, I’m regretting this…)

Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton “likeable enough” as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would “absolutely, positively not” vote for him come fall.

(Hurt feelings are no way to choose how you’re gonna vote in an election.  I’m not trying to pick on lady-voters here but this article keeps showcasing their darker side.  I’m trying the defend the fellas from the knee-jerk hatred omnipresent in the tone of all modern media, but this constant potrayal of women voters who won’t vote for the candidate that reminds them of their 7th grade boyriend makes me think the media hates women too?)

Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. “I think Obama was terribly sexist,” she said.

(…and nothing anybody says to the contrary will enter into my decision making.  This thing called ‘sexism’ is everywhere, it trumps all other troubles, and once convicted you are guilty forever. That “I think…” part of the quote is there to actually heighten her argument if you can believe it. Feminists believe that adds gravity to their statement, as a warning and a kind of stick with which to club you with.  “I think, therefore stay the Eff out of my line of fire” said Socrates once.)

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.

(Not for nothing, but be prepared for a lifetime more of this; of articles written this archly, of victims feeling victimized, of hyperbole of said victimhood, of cognitive dissonance.  And don’t you dare say anything contrarian.)

Whatever barriers Mrs. Clinton may have smashed, she left some intact for future contenders to try themselves against. She seemed uncertain how to reconcile her sex with her political persona. Though she projected an aura of authority, said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with any candidate, she variously cast herself as a victim of male domination, a warm girlfriend type and, at the end, an indefatigable warrior. She even made contradictory statements about whether sex should be a factor in the race.

(Barriers are external, even as the internal ones they are blind to are so much more insurmountable and visible to everyone else.  But projection and externalization are the cornerstone of the same people who hate personal accountability and Agency.  Men give things to women, men take them from women, men are still the object of obsession for women.  Women blame men for everything the way Al Gore blames Ralph Nader for everything.  And way to pat yourself on the back for barrier smashing, you the man.)

Mrs. Clinton ran into trouble with some of the classic hurdles that women who are politicians face, historians and sociologists said. “It was the same conversations we’ve been having since the ’70s,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

(What’s lacking in feminism is a lack of fresh air.  If these hurdles are so classic, maybe they don’t really exist and they’re still around because they were never there.  How’s that for incongruity?  “Still Here Because It Was Never There.”  You want some new “hurdles” to tilt against?  How about “What if feminism has cause more harm that it was originally trying to fix?” or “why are feminists so selfish and only speak about how they can benefit instead of speaking about how they can best serve the society?”  Here’s a good hurdle to solve:  “How come any feminist that would actually take the time to read this would never actually listen to any of this and would instead block it all out, proving my point?”)

Take the need to project toughness and warmth simultaneously. The test is unfair, many say, because men are not subjected to it as harshly and because it is nearly impossible not to err on one side. Still, some say Mrs. Clinton went overboard on toughness.

(I admit even I may be getting shrill at this point.  This is a long article and I’m flogging dead horses now by paragraph 203.  That said, we’ve now gotten to the point in the article when it’s obvious Hillary and the Feminists want the presidency for themselves and not out of any mentality of service.  If running for president is so hard and people are so mean and the tests are so hoop-jumping why not let it go and let Obama do it?  Just let it go, unless you want it for yourself and for all the wrong reasons.  See I’m getting tired and shrill, saying Clinton shouldn’t run anymore because it’s difficult.  We should make the standards easier, so people can feel better about themselves.  Because it’s all about them.)

“The idea that you have to talk about eradicating Iran — that’s all, to me, the voices of people advising her,” said Patricia Schroeder, a former Colorado congresswoman and Clinton supporter who considered seeking the Democratic nomination in 1987.

(Politics is a full-contact game of soccer play by 22 men, and now that Feminists want to play we have to slow the game down, make it less rough, pass to the women more often and with special attention to them, and chase after the ball on their behalf when they get tired and don’t want to do it anymore.  And we should let them score the winning goal and have the goalie throw himself at the ball and make a big spectacle about it.)

And yet Mrs. Clinton may not have passed the commander in chief test. In New York Times/CBS News polls conducted this winter, voters rated Mr. Obama’s potential in that area more highly than they did Mrs. Clinton’s, though neither served in the military or has much experience directly handling international crises. Perhaps participants had many reasons for preferring Mr. Obama, but they followed the long-standing pattern of finding women less plausible military commanders than men.

(Ah, let’s wait until the very end, and after we’ve thrown a boatload of theories out, to explain why people don’t want to vote for Clinton.  Let’s leave it to the very end, because it isn’t what we want to hear and no amount of FACT is going to get in the way of our OPINION.  Our feelings are paramount  and we’re going to expound upong them for 103 paragraphs and then allude to other people’s stupid FACTS.)

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, many women say with regret, did not inspire a deep or nuanced conversation between men and women, only familiar gender-war battles consisting of male gibes and her supporters’ angry responses. Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender.

(Clinton didn’t want to have to lower herself and discuss anything of substance and greeted any opposition as a personal attack.  And the gender war that ensued was all men’s fault, like everything good or evil done on this planet is.  Feminism is as matter-of-fact and dogmatic a concept as the planet being round or the planet revolving around the sun.  Any nuanced conversation on gender would be so beneath the ladies, so Flat Earth Society to them.)

Mrs. Clinton, for example, declined a New York Times request earlier this year for an interview about the gender dynamics of the race; an aide said the topic would be impossible for her to address in a frank way

(Clinton would be unable to address it in a frank way or in a way that would guarantee a favorable outcome for her side.  If the win can’t be fixed ahead of time, then the battle won’t happen.)

The conversation Mrs. Clinton spurred among women, however, seemed newer and more surprising. Her candidacy split Democratic women, not to mention prominent feminists. (Last week, the abortion-rights group Naral Pro-Choice America endorsed Mr. Obama, setting off protest from other women’s groups.) The cleft was largely along generational lines, with older women who had waged their own battles showing more solidarity and younger ones arguing that voting for a male candidate over a female one was itself a sign of progress and confidence.

(This is an embarassing description of women voters, yet again.  No talk of the issues, or of where each candidate stood on them.  Maybe I’m thinking like a man, but aren’t the issues more important than he said-she said-she felt-she felt?)

“The most important contribution she has made is to show that women candidates are just like men candidates,” said Joan Scott, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study. “You have to judge them not on the basis of their gender but their character.”

(This is false.  She has proven the opposite.  Women candidates SHOULD be just like men candidates, but aren’t.  And the second half of that quote is a straw man (!) as well.  Somebody’s trying to shove something past us here, trying to get by.)

Over the course of the campaign, Jennifer Rogers, a film producer in Los Angeles, came to agree. She voted for Mrs. Clinton, in part because she hoped to see a female president, but she recently lost enthusiasm over what she called a lack of truthfulness on the candidate’s part. “Her problems are about who she is and not her gender,” said Ms. Rogers, 28.

(I was taught by women that if you vote for somebody because of their skin color or because of their sex you are a racist and a mysoginist.  Were they speaking out in the name of objective Truth or were they playing Partisan politics and don’t care about anything objective?  Do they care about Truth or did they just try to prevent me from voting for who I wanted to vote for?)

Amy Rees, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mother in San Francisco, agrees — most of the time. She said she agonized between the two choices, finally voted for Mr. Obama and did not regret it. Mrs. Clinton lost on the merits, Ms. Rees said.

(Wait for it, wait for it…)

Still, every so often, she feels a flicker of worry about whether that is entirely so. Referring to Mr. Obama, Ms. Rees said, “He still looks more like every other president we’ve ever had than she does.”

(Of course, we couldn’t end the article without some unrelated non sequiter.  Along this line of logic, along this line of logic… along this line of, oh I can’t do it.  You work out the loggerhead of Truth here.)

Written by Common Sense

May 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Posted in Bad News

Yeah!

leave a comment »

Written by Common Sense

May 16, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Posted in Good News

Attention Seeking

leave a comment »

The feminists insist on reviving all the old cliches about women.

I’ll admit it, this article had me going for a second.  I got mad, couldn’t believe they had to dig their nose into our business.  I didn’t dismiss them right away, I admittedly took them seriously for a second.

So the old saws are still there, even in their beloved Feminism.  They have to stick their nose up in other people’s business, can’t leave men alone for even a second.  Anytime the guys want some time alone, anytime guys are not 100% focused on women, the ladies get all upset.  “Hey, what are you guys doing in the garage?  How much longer are you gonna be down there?  Are you coming up soon?  What’s so important that you can’t come back upstairs?”

I’d only heard of this in myth and legend, so I’m glad they were able to provide me with a real-time example of an extinct sterotype.

Feminism is so corrosive, mocking what it doesn’t understand.  “Oh guys are doing something that doesn’t involve paying attention to us?  Oh it must be stupid and juvenille.  Oh it involves men, becoming men?  Oh that’s stupid.”  Corrosive.  It’s the Hillary Clinton “if-I-can’t-have-it-then-I’m-gonna-destroy-it-for-everybody.”

I’m mad at myself for taking the bait.  Instead of dismissing the author’s rant as a need for attention, I took the bait.  Sorry guys.

If I had done it right, I would have kept my attention on getting the job done, and ignored that mosquito-sounding sound buzzing in my ear.  Which leads me to a larger point, one that will need a longer exposition in the future:  Feminism is a mosquito-buzzing buzz in the ears of people getting the job done, but it is a buzzing with real-world consequences and it’s malaria-like symptoms are doing damage.  Instead of dismissing the buzzing of feminism, we’ve taken it seriously and now salaries have stagnated whilst housing prices have doubled.  Charming chauvinism has become genocidal misogyny in the amplified terrors of the Feminist mouthpiece, another hyperbole that needs fleshing out.

Since all things masculine are practical, here comes the practical advice: when the harpies start harping, dismiss all of it and translate it’s meaning into the fact that somebody’s starving for attention.  Don’t get mad, don’t question your actions, don’t get derailed from the task at hand.  Learn from my mistake, I’m still cutting my teeth.

Reading your way to a Y chromosome
The Art Of Manliness

Written by Common Sense

May 16, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Posted in Bad News

…Because Someone Had To Dovetail Marxism With Capitalism.

with one comment

Written by Common Sense

May 14, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Posted in Bad News