I am so tired of the anti-female card being played. While I missed seeing the Clinton and Trump interviews on September 7th, reports I read suggest that interviewer Matt Lauer is the latest victim of a gender attack. My daughter, who did see the interviews reported that Hillary seemed angry at being asked tough questions and inauthentic in her replies, while Donald seemed authentic but bizarre. I accept that as an honest review.
Yet, the press I read focused on Matt Lauer’s lack of fairness and sexism.
It seems he allowed Trump to talk over him while, in contrast, he made Mrs. Clinton toe the line. Perhaps the incensed Clintonites should sit down with Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and thirteen other Republican presidential candidates, only one of whom was female. In a series of embarrassing Republican debates, Trump dominated the conversation there too. When the identical thing happens with seventeen people, fifteen males and two females, can one of the female candidate’s supporters really call sexism? And why is it that we aren’t hearing the tired complaint that mentioning a candidate’s hair is sexist? Could it be because of the two major party contenders, Trump’s tresses are the ones that are ridiculed?
We live in an odd world. Politician’s and legislators are enacting laws that make gender a meaningless word, insisting that you are whatever you want to be, and at the same time, otherwise intelligent people are insisting that Hillary’s body parts are enough of a reason to vote for her and the source of anyone’s opposition to her. Lewis Carroll and George Orwell could not have collaborated on a novel of such ridiculous illogicality.
Theranos, the recently imploded bio-tech start up was founded by Elizabeth Holmes. For over a decade she was the darling of the press, investors and award-granting organizations for her revelatory development of a new, less intrusive blood test. It seems that the whole thing was illusory. Does anyone really believe that had she not been a young, attractive female in a world desperate for women scientists and eye-catching news, that her claims might not have been investigated more closely at an earlier date? It is possible while reading the Vanity Fair article about her, to think that Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Holmes have much in common. Holmes ran a secretive organization, eschewed outside review and when her facts were questioned by Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou, her employees led chants damning him rather than expecting her to refute his claims. A case could be made that neither headline-getting woman would have had the success she has if not for being a woman.
Noticing that there is gender bias—that people’s behavior towards you and assessment of you is affected by your gender—is another way of noticing that people aren’t computers. There are times gender bias works in either sex’ favor and times that it works against either sex. There are some valid concerns that deserve to be addressed and an overwhelming number of absurd grumbles. Right now, Hillary Clinton supporters lead the pack of foolish complainers. In doing so, they do a disservice to honest, hard-working, intelligent women who actually deserve positions of trust and responsibility. In a week that also saw the death of a true female leader, Phyllis Schlafly, there is little question that in a truly honest and fair environment, Hillary Clinton nor Elizabeth Holmes are little more than great pretenders.
12 thoughts on “Feminist Foibles”
The intelligence level of your fans is awesome. so nice to hear people making solid statements of substance in opposition without stooping to whinny repetitive rhetoric.
Well, of course! But with my semi-comedic planting of a mythical seed, perhaps some of the wise may be sensitized to the ‘keeping up of appearances’ of The Left. Hyacinth Bouquet, anyone?
BTW, the Rabbi’s Thought Tools were right on target for my (extended) family this week! Another triumph for Our Rabbi, who gently advises us again and again that in Biblical Hebrew there is no such word as ‘coincidence.’ שלום
“Right now, Hillary Clinton supporters lead the pack of foolish complainers.”
‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’ R.W. Emerson
Today at the urgent insistence of my non-feminist wife, I watched a fifteen-minute video of an intrepid medical doctor who impartially analyzed (1) the Wikileaks findings of Julian Assange from Hillary’s ‘lost’ emails, with Huma instructed to inquire about remedies for Parkinson’s Disease, (2) media photos of Hillary losing control, falling, blacking out and staring bug-eyed with weird autonomic nods and grimaces before the camera and the public eye. Hillary was dancing the L-Dopa rag. From these documented phenomena, without providing unauthorized diagnosis, he warned that Hillary exhibits telltale clinical signs of advanced-stage Parkinson’s Disease. Thus when the fateful Benghazi Crisis rang in the early hours, she may have been out, unresponsive in a parallel universe. She will almost certainly be more-or-less incapacitated in office.
These symptoms cannot have gone unnoticed by the Progressive Alinskyites. They desperately want her elected! I sniff a deadly pattern here. Here follows a madcap Gedankenexperiment like The Prisoner of Zenda or Heinlein’s Double Star: If Hillary, once elected, turns incapacitated, she need not be replaced. She can be impersonated. A well-groomed actor takes her place in the blink of an eyelash to rule as a cardboard figurehead for a shadowy Progressive Big Government in her stead. Eternal Mother Hillary!
Paranoia? In the workplace I knew a Cuban expatriate who escaped with his wife the hard way. He told me how dictator Fidel Castro employed a team of SIX doubles. In every parade or convoy, he and / or one of his decoy doubles would travel in separate cars, to minimize the likelihood that the Real Fidel would die in an assassination attempt. Fidel may now be pushing up daisies, deftly replaced by one of his play-actors for staged public appearances. Likewise, the corpse of eternal Lenin in his crystal sarcophagus had to be removed. Even under inert argon atmosphere, his ‘eternal’ nose shriveled and collapsed; it had to be replaced with a waxen replica and his withered face pumped full of fillers and reconstituted to enhance his ‘eternal’ appearance for the Communist Faithful. Thus is the Left obsessed with keeping up appearances, like Britcom Hyacinth Bouquet. A foolish consistency indeed!
Actually, James, I think there was a movie with this theme except the dead (or incapacitated – I don’t remember) U.S. president was a mean, cruel man and his replacement was warm-hearted. I’m rather vague on the details. Even for me, however, this is too much. I do think there could be a health cover-up going on and, really, this would be the most sympathetic, if completely unprofessional and unpatriotic, explanation for Benghazi.
How come the “smartest woman on earth” needs someone to tell her that a document is classified. Wouldn’t a qualification for POTUS be the ability to tell the difference between what should be a classified document and what isn’t?
One would think that in a rational world that would be a requirement.
Please, someone wake me on Election Day. I’ll be voting but I’m so sick of the lies, distortions, bragging and name calling. I’ve stopped listening and watching 95% of it. Working on a quilt for my new grandson and knitting dishcloths. Trying to keep my blood pressure under control! Blessings Susan.
Quilting sounds like a wonderful idea!
Susan, something that has struck me about Hillary Clinton as “new,” when you thought there wasn’t anything more to be discovered, is how she has resorted to playing the dumb blonde when it suits her.
Months ago, when asked if she had wiped her basement private email server, she had said, “What, like with a cloth?” And now she claims that she didn’t realize that the letter “C” on some correspondence as Secretary of State was for “Classified” but rather suggested paragraph order, such as A,B,C.
So the woman who expects people to honor and vote for her because she’s a woman feeds directly into one of the oldest stereotypes about women. That’s just rich, though not nearly as rich as Hillary Clinton.
You are so right, Judy. It is embarrassing to watch her play dumb while insisting she’s the smartest woman on earth.
I’m tired of the gender card being played–period. It seems to me, it gets played too often by those seeking self serving political gain while having no real concern for either gender..
I see a politician open his or her mouth and unfortunately, my response is now conditioned, like one of Pavlov’s dogs, to see them as uninvited, obnoxious con men hawking something unpalatable,.
when what I want is for them to stop inserting themselves into my life at every turn.
If they were already doing something of merit, pretty sure I’d have heard about it and wouldn’t require being “sold”..
Dee, not only are they telling you how wonderful they are, sometimes they are using your money to do so. In Seattle, they put in light rail and then spent millions telling people what a success it was, countering what people saw with their own eyes. All at taxpayer expense.
Comments are closed.