Monday, November 23, 2009

A quick whirl around the wacky world of misandry

A few random notes:
  The monstrous hit "New Moon" shattered box office expectations over the weekend, powered by its overwhelmingly double X chromosome fan base. In case you don't know, "New Moon" is anything but feminist fare.  While I am certain that feminist "thinkers" (an oxymoron of the most grotesque kind) are weighing in on both sides of that question and doing what they do best -- making up their own "truth" as they go along, I need not support my assertion with evidence beyond noting the plot of the film: it is a story about a girl willing to give up her very mortal existence to forever be with the boy she loves. By comparison, "New Moon" makes "Snow White" and "Cinderella" look like anthems for feminist women.  Which tells us what?  Well, it's just one piece of evidence that tends to support the conclusion that traditional gender roles are still mainstream, and likely always will be, and that feminists wield power in the halls of government far disproportionate to their numbers.

  There's a scene in "New Moon" where teens are watching a sad movie. The camera pans from one to the next until settling on Eric, the token Asian American student in the film.  Eric is so touched by whatever it was they were watching, he has tears streaming down his face. At a crowded showing of the film over the weekend in a very large urban theater, that shot elicited a burst of high-pitched, girlish laughter.  Men, and boys, aren't supposed to cry, and the girls found Eric's reaction "funny." You see, feminism, whose influence peaked thirty-five years ago, has done nothing except pay lip service to alter gender roles when it comes to men.  Mind you, these weren't young men laughing; these were teen and slightly older females laughing at a young man for exhibiting what is widely believed to be a feminine characteristic.  Feminism is content to leave unaltered what women have always done: keep men in their little, gender constricted box.  This gives feminists the chance to angrily talk about how "masculinity" needs to be redefined along feminist lines.

  If you want to see feminists' true colors, here's a little recent example of one of them yapping with her guard down.  Joy Behar (who, by the way, recently took the president to task for playing too much all-male basketball and golf, thereby leaving the female power players at a supposed disadvantage) called stay-at-home dad Todd Palin -- the man who just last year held two jobs and worked occasional 85-hour weeks -- a "bum."  That's right, a "bum."  Never mind that the Palins have four underage children and that Mom is the family's principal breadwinner and that she's constantly on the road.  In theory, one would think the feminists would hold Todd Palin out as a feminist icon instead of a "bum."  Feminist ideology, gender equity, and insisting that every person be treated as a human being all go out the window any time one of them sees the slightest opportunity to engage in male bashing, which none of them seem able to resist.

  Why do some colleges engage in at least an unofficial affirmative action for men?  Is it to give struggling young men a needed boost, the way affirmative action is intended to help every other disadvantaged group?  Heavens, no. The entire effort is motivated by a gynocentric view of the world: it's designed (1) to give female students what they want (a chance to get a date on Saturday night -- so admitting a few young men who don't really deserve to be there is like spreading a little peanut butter in a mouse trap), and (2) to give the schools what they really want (the best FEMALE students they can attract).  Read this:  "A few years back, a friend who teaches in a graduate political science department at a prominent university told me that the women who applied to his school's program were so much more qualified than the male applicants that if all applicants were selected solely on the basis of academic merit, no men would be admitted to the program. That would be fine with my friend except for the fact that highly qualified women will not attend a program that is all female. Thus this program actually engaged in what amounts to affirmative action for males in order to attract and keep highly qualified female students."  (Don't you love how the speaker would be just "fine" with all female students? I'm sure she or he wouldn't be so "fine" with all males, or all whites, or all Christians. "Diversity," you see, is a code word for "fewer white heterosexual males.")

  How would the following comments be received in the progressive news media if the genders were reversed?  We KNOW how they'd be received -- with protests, disgust, and newspaper column after column about how "far" we still have to go to overcome sexism. But I'll bet you never even heard about these comments -- because it was a powerful women talking about a younger man:  Last week, Hillary Clinton described the British foreign secretary David Miliband as “tall and dashing."  She swooned: “If you saw him, it would be a big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive and smart.”  And if the genders were reversed, guess who'd have been among the first to complain that the speaker put "attractive" ahead of "smart."  So much for feminist ideology, gender equity, and insisting that every person is a human being -- all that goes out the window any time one of them sees Prince Charming.