Friday, September 9, 2016

Playing the Sexism Card

Committed leftist that he is, Peter Beinart looks at Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sees only sexism. Similarly, when looking at Barack Obama’s presidency he sees only racism.

In his new Atlantic article Beinart lays on a rather extravagant guilt trip. If you don’t vote for Hillary you are sexist. If you did not vote for Obama and support everything he has done you are racist.

There, that’s clear, isn’t it?

You were wondering why people are angry. They are angry at being disrespected by the intelligentsia and being talked to as though they are children. Of course, many people are angry at themselves for having fallen for this cheap rhetorical trick in 2008 and 2012.

Beinart is upset that people have such a negative opinion of Hillary:

The percentage of Americans who hold a “strongly unfavorable” view of her substantially exceeds the percentage for any other Democratic nominee since 1980, when pollsters began asking the question. Antipathy to her among white men is even more unprecedented. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 52 percent of white men hold a “very unfavorable” view of Clinton. 

What is it about Hillary that turns people off? Could it be her dishonesty and her willingness to compromise state secrets—and then to lie about it repeatedly? Could it be the fact that her candidacy is based on an empty resume—a bunch of sinecure jobs and no accomplishments?

Speaking of big lies, why is this monumentally unqualified candidate is being touted as the most qualified candidate in history? If you do not believe that Hillary is qualified you are a bigot.

But, it might be that if she had not been named Clinton, no one would ever have considered her for the presidency? If she had not been female, no one would have considered her a viable candidate for much of anything.

And besides, Hillary Clinton is not only an incompetent fraud, but she clearly does not like people. Most politicians, beginning with her husband and with W, like people. Everyone who has ever listened to Hillary knows that she does not. She cackles like a witch and sounds like a shrill harpy.

In any event Beinart does not think that there is any good reason why people don’t like Hillary. Like a eunuch at the court of the Mother Goddess he is off on his own private guilt trip and wants to share it with the rest of us. He sees the hand of sexism at work, just as he sees racism in all criticism of Obama:

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.

Funny that Beinart should mention the Obama example. The American people elected a man whose candidacy was based almost entirely on his race. If Obama had been white and had had the same track record no one would have imagined him as a potential president. Certainly, no one would have voted for him.

Since Obama’s supporters shout racism any time their hero is criticized, American political conversation had been polluted. And the nation has been divided against itself. Jeremiah Wright’s protégé has turned white against blacks, supported unpatriotic signaling, sold out American interests around the world and diminished the nation’s standing and self-esteem.

But, don’t say it, because then you are racist. And we do not want to consider that we were all conned into elevating someone who was in no way qualified for the job.

It’s not so much that Obama’s presidency provoked a wave of racism. Most people greeted his presidency with good will. Obama himself stoked the fires of racism… because he needed to blame someone else for his miserable incompetence. It’s like when blacks shoot blacks in increasing numbers on the streets of Obama’s home city of Chicago, the politically correct response is to blame it on white police or on white privilege.

Anyway, since Beinart cannot see through his own guilt, he ignores the possibility that the Hillary campaign, through its surrogates and its satraps, has taxed Americans with sexism and has told us all that voting for her will absolve us of all our sins.

Better yet, Beinart suggests that men are turned off by Hillary because they feel that she threatens their manhood. This is a cheap rhetorical trick. It says that voting for Hillary makes you a real man. It’s almost like saying that men who unman themselves to support Hillary are the only real men. What does that say about her husband who, when he found his manhood threatened by Hillary, looked elsewhere for support and sustenance? Again and again and again. Moreover, Bubba was not known for treating his conquests well: he was accused of sexual harassment and even rape.

If Hillary did not threaten her husband’s manhood, would he have been cheating on her with utter impunity? And would have cast a blind eye on it? Idem for Anthony Weiner.

For better or for worse, women were swooning over Bill Clinton. Name me one man who is having erotic dreams with Hillary Clinton. 

For the record, anecdotally, I know many women who despise Hillary far more than any man does. And these women do not belong to the Tea Party.

Beinart makes the point that masculinity is something that is earned while femininity is a woman’s birthright. The point is interesting, yet, Hillary is not a very feminine woman and she has surely not earned her chance to be president.

Many people, even men, resent her because she did not work her way up. She rode her husband’s coattails… like Evita Peron and Lurleen Wallace. These latter, of course, never pretended to have earned much of anything. They were stand-ins.

If women do not earn their way in the world of politics or of business they will not receive respect. As long as there are diversity quotas the successes of minority candidates and women will be compromised by the assumption that they did not earn their way. And it tells us why they often do not command as much respect as a man.

Moreover, most people are less guilt ridden than Peter Beinart and understand that the difference between men and women is not just a social construct.

As it happens, people do not react well to ambitious and powerful women. Clearly, there are exceptions to the rule—Margaret Thatcher comes to mind—but even the great Angela Merkel is setting an example of how not to govern a nation. Considering the horrors that Merkel has unleashed in Germany why would anyone not be skeptical of women leaders who feel compelled to show their motherly side by allowing nations to be flooded with sexual predators? Is it their revenge against women who are younger and more attractive?

What if it’s not prejudice that makes it more difficult for women to exercise power, but something that is hard wired into the organism? We have already remarked on the fact that women leaders sometimes drop their voices a few octaves in order to sound more authoritative.

But, a woman who starts talking like a man will be less likely to attract the interest of men—witness Hillary. A woman has the option but she should not expect that men will find her irresistibly alluring for doing so.

This means, that as long as women are given a truly free choice of how they want to conduct their lives, very few women will want to sacrifice home and family in favor of becoming an ersatz man.

The negative reaction to Hilary is not just about violating gender norms. Or even about being a fake man. It’s the manifest incompetence she has shown while pretending to be Secretary of State. If you cannot distinguish the two you are just trying to lay a guilt trip on all of us.

Of course, evidence of successful women leaders is very slim. Beinart seems to think that women leaders are more tentative because they are disrespected. In truth, women leaders command less respect because they are more tentative and more hesitant. After all, women are constitutionally weaker than men and thus instinctively less inclined to be confrontational or to lean in. The behavior has been hard wired into the organism by the laws of natural selection. You remember Darwin, don’t you?

This does not mean that women cannot exercise leadership. It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, but it does mean that it’s very rare. In this case exceptions do not make the rule.


Dennis said...

If only women were capable of providing the same kind of love that the "media" gives to Hillary. Challenge Hillary and the "media" infers domestic violence and sexism. One wonders if this isn't a case of SM and bondage on the "media's" part. They just need to have Hillary be their dominatrix. There is no insult that they won't accept from Hillary with deference.
It is not only liberal women who have their "kneepads', but also the males in the "media" who are on their knees. Maybe, it is the Maoist attire Hillary always wears that adds a degree of socialist chic most "media" types require.
It is really creepy.....YUCK!

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: Better yet, Beinart suggests that men are turned off by Hillary because they feel that she threatens their manhood. This is a cheap rhetorical trick.

Well, we might look into this before jumping to conclusions.

Beinart: To understand this reaction, start with what social psychologists call “precarious manhood” theory. The theory posits that while womanhood is typically viewed as natural and permanent, manhood must be “earned and maintained.” Because it is won, it can also be lost. Scholars ... asked how someone might lose his manhood, college students rattled off social failures like “losing a job.” When asked how someone might lose her womanhood, by contrast, they mostly came up with physical examples like “a sex-change operation” or “having a hysterectomy.”

Maybe we might evaluate this "theory" without deciding on Hillary's plight? Here's another article:

Whatever the truth here, we can consider that "manhood" is more dependent upon what we can do, rather than what we are. And given historically most women had children, while most men did not shows a lower status for men on average, and a greater need to fight for whatever status society offers.

Heck, this might even explain why male Muslim teens in France think its a good idea to try to control the dress of women. They say status is achieved through successful execution of power, rather than how many times you fail. So high status men are those who keep trying to assert control over their surroundings, until they find success, and that makes for a problematic relationship to older men as well.

Anyway, somehow I'm not threatened by a woman president. I remember my history teacher in high school joked about the first election that women could vote, and they helped pick Harding for president in 1920 and all his scandals.
Warren Gamaliel Harding (November 2, 1865 – August 2, 1923) was the 29th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1921, until his death. Harding died one of the most popular presidents in history, but the subsequent exposure of scandals that took place under him, such as Teapot Dome, eroded his popular regard, as did revelations of an affair by Nan Britton, one of his mistresses. In historical rankings of the U.S. presidents, Harding is often rated among the worst.

It also is worthy to consider that men who don't want a woman president probably would also prefer women to not vote at all. How are those frail things supposed to make the correct choice for president when their emotions and hormones are going crazy every month?

Maybe to be safe we should require women to be past menopause before they can vote or run for public office. That would keep us safe from women's hormones.

But some might argue men's hormones are also not to be trusted for leadership until they wind down after age 50 or so?

Trigger Warning said...

The Proglodyte Left has worn out the "that's raciss!" and "that's sexiss!" ball gags. Overuse wears down any tool.

It's interesting that Drudge's lead link at the moment, "High Anxiety", addresses the Proglodyte worry that Hillary's wooden, hectoring, cackling public persona needs revision. They seem blinded to the simple fact that Clinton is a pathological liar. Their prescription for the plummeting poll numbers boils down to: "more cowbell authenticity" and "change the subject".

It's weird, frankly. Discussing, a la Feinstein, the "manufacturing base" is not going to solve her basic problem; viz, her carpet bombing of the public with lies. The recent debunkulated claims about the LSAT are a perfect example.

David Foster said...

I know quite a few women who are good leaders, and do not come across as unfeminine at all.

The range of leadership styles that can be effective is broader than often understood.

I do think where some female leaders get into trouble is by copying what they *think* is the model of effective mail leadership, which they probably got from tv, movies, and 'how to succeed' books more than by direct observation.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

The Atlantic has talked about this phenomenon: "The Era of the Bitch."

Hillary is a bitch. Sorry if that's harsh, but if it were a guy acting like this, I'd say he was an asshole. While I recognize Bill Clinton's political talent, I think he's an asshole. So they're perfect for each other, but not for the country. If "bitch" and "asshole" are sexist terms, fine. Perhaps we can find another way to express these sentiments. But if she wants to act like she's acting, and bases her entire candidacy on this idea that someone with a vagina should be president, then what follows is predictable. You can't complain about sexism if you frame your candidacy around gender. Well, you can, but it's predictable that it will fall on deaf ears. Beinart sounds like a pretty ineffective surrogate, but he is following the Democrat Party's victimology. It's always someone else's fault.

And like David Foster, I know plenty of women who are good leaders. My wife and my mother are both strong women. But they also have their priorities lined up in a way that brings them happiness. Power isn't their agenda. Hillary does not seem like a happy person. In fact, she seems miserable. Miserable people blame their circumstances on everyone else. I'm not interested in being represented by a miserable person.

I love how we're all just bigots if we don't get with the politically-correct, progressive, cosmopolitan program. It's getting old.

Sam L. said...

"Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric." How is that counterintuitive? As Jon Gabriel said, "What I like about the Obama era is all the racial healing."

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Hillary spoke to a bunch of her donors last night, saying half of Trump voters belong to her "basket of deplorables."

Being that I was an ardent member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, I am also now deplorable. And proud to be.

She's touched.

Dennis said...

Sam L,
The corollary of Jon Gabriel is, "What I like about the Clinton era is all the gender healing." If you think the loss of "due process" rights in academe is wrong then you might want to get ready, as a male or a female who has the temerity to challenge the Clintons, to lose those rights. When they came for Ares' neighbor he did nothing.......................and when they came for Ares he was surprised.......

There is an obvious sign that Hillary is losing and that is we are seeing both the sex and race card being played more frequently. Even worse is now the Hillary campaign is attacking and alienating a large select group of Americans. I wonder if they don't realize that what has created much of Trump's following is that people are getting tired of being called racist, bigots, homophobes, safe spaces, STFU, et al for wanting to express their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and much of what the Constitution provides as rights. They are tired of us being divided into smaller and smaller groups and the loss of the individual American identity. Hillary divisiveness is your name and lying is your fame.

Dennis said...


There is something very enjoyable about being deplorable to the Clintons. The irony is just perfect. It seems to me that both Bill and Hill just created their Romney moment with a touch of arrogance indicative of all who consider themselves the elite.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares never jumps to conclusions.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @September 10, 2016 at 6:56 AM:

I've never minded being despised by people I have contempt for. But yes, this strikes me as a "Romney moment," though Romney told the truth. And now Hillary is sharing her Truth, and her Truth is better than your truth.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @September 10, 2016 at 6:03 AM:

It was really pathetic after 9/11 when the Lefties were asking "Why do they hate us?"

Like Obama, Hillary shows herself contemptuous of a wide swathe of America (ironically, the America she came from), and she shows she hates us. I never ask "Why does she hate me?" I know. She thinks she's better than me. She's not an American, she's a member of the cosmopolitan, education-pedigreed, globalist elite. And she wants to be president of America. Hmmm... I wonder why.

I love the idea of Brexit more and more as time goes on.

David Foster said...

IAC..."And she wants to be president of America. Hmmm... I wonder why."

My analysis of Obama's desire to be president of America also applies to her, I think"

AesopFan said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
Dennis @September 10, 2016 at 6:03 AM:

It was really pathetic after 9/11 when the Lefties were asking "Why do they hate us?"

* * *
Another Anniversary
Fifteen years after 9/11, timeless truths endure.
Matthew Hennessey
September 9, 2016
After a decade and a half, we seem to be reverting to a pre-attack mindset. One thing that the Colin Kaepernick brouhaha has exposed is just how conflicted many Americans remain about our fundamental goodness as a nation. Are we as virtuous as we think we are? It’s a question tied directly to the one that was on most people’s minds in the days following 9/11: What did we do to deserve this?
We did nothing to deserve it. The people who went to work in those towers that morning did nothing to deserve the instant obliteration that was their fate. The firefighters and police who selflessly and reflexively responded to the call did nothing to deserve what befell them. The passengers on those planes, and the flight crews that were mercilessly slaughtered, did nothing to deserve to have their lives extinguished in a terrifying instant.
More than that, however, we, the United States of America, did nothing to deserve it. Throughout its short history, this nation has tried to spread liberty in the world, to oppose tyranny, to advance freedom, to promote prosperity, to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed, the mistreated, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No nation, our own included, is without sin; but no other nation is what the United States is. In Lincoln’s words, we are the last best hope of Earth.
Nothing will heal the invisible wounds of 9/11. For those who lived through it, the panic and despair of that terrible morning is never far from the surface. The memories are easily summoned. Those who remember will grieve on this anniversary much as they did on the first anniversary and much as they will decades hence. But we must never lose sight of the truth: we are not the enemy.

AesopFan said...

I love it when my favorite blogs tackle the same subject.

"Here’s an article by Peter Beinart in the Atlantic which is exactly the sort of thing I expected more of from liberals and the left this election cycle. It explains anti-Hillary sentiment as being motivated by the fact that she’s a woman. It’s almost exactly parallel to those articles before and during Obama’s presidency that framed objections to him as racism.

Both arguments are similar in that they dismiss the incredibly glaring flaws of each candidate (or in Obama’s case, president)—flaws that have nothing to do with race or gender—as being of no relevance in explaining what really causes all the vociferous criticism to be directed at them....I’ve actually been struck by how little real concern there seems to be these days about having a female president per se. That doesn’t mean that Hillary isn’t pilloried in ways that target her as a female (her sexuality, her looks, her voice, to name a few). But to me that seems to be the result of the Hillary-disapproval, not the cause of it, because there are a wealth of substantive issues and there’s plenty of history in her life that would be more than sufficient to explain about 99% of the hatred expressed towards her."

sestamibi said...

As unpleasant as it may be, the election is still Hillary's to lose--electoral college-wise.

That sets the stage for a situation early next year in which the leaders of three of the West's most powerful countries will be women--who have a grand total of one child among them. That says it all, don't you think?