For reasons that escape me the
Democratic Party and its alt-left faction has suddenly decided to be the party
of the facts. For decades now the radical left and especially its outposts on
college campuses has been teaching that there are no facts. There are just
interpretations. There are dreams and fantasies, desires and feelings… but
these, in case no one noticed, are not based on facts. People who are
gnashing their teeth over someone’s hurt feelings ought not to be hiding under
the mantle of facts.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton was
speaking at a friendly group, Advancing Women in Peace and Security. It's the kind of group where they have in-jokes. The
jokes do not make any sense but everyone laughs because it shows that you are a
true-believing cult follower. Which means that you will believe anything that
affirms your membership in the cult. True and false don't matter. You demonstrate the depth of your conviction when you believe something that is patent nonsense.
Anyway, Her Hillaryness was
speaking at a group that was touting how women make the world more peaceful. This means that women function
as living, breathing pacifiers.
Why would this be? Well, Hillary
does not know, because, no sooner had she touted women’s superior capacity for
keeping the peace than she felt constrained to tack on the party-line position: that
women are no more peaceable than men.
Her audience guffawed because
nothing shows how truly you adhere to a cause than your ability to accept
absurd contradictions. This works especially well when you use buzz words, like “alternative reality” or “alternative
facts.” Again, these phrases serve to make you feel like you belong to the
cult.
In the cult, you already know,
gender is a social construct, so scientific evidence does not count.
Anyway, Jonah Goldberg reports on
the rank absurdity of it all. He quotes Hillary:
She also said, “Before anybody jumps to any
conclusions, I will state clearly: Women are not inherently more peaceful than
men. That is a stereotype. That belongs in the alternative reality.”
Of course, this is nonsense. Women
are constitutionally weaker than men and are far less prone to violence. One
understands that cult followers believe that these statistics are also social
constructs and that they expose the endemic sexism in human cultures. These cultures have consistently kept women off of the battlefield because they fear the ferocity of angry women.
Goldberg offers up a smorgasbord
of evidence to refute Hillary’s point:
In
2015, according to the FBI, 7,549 men were arrested for murder and
non-negligent manslaughter. Only 984 women were. Men were four times more
likely to be arrested for violent crimes and ten times more likely to be
arrested for illegal possession of a weapon.
It’s
not just in America. Disproportionate male aggression is a human universal,
appearing all over the world and across thousands of years. “In almost every
society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds
of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide,” writes Dorian Fortuna at Psychology Today. “They mobilize themselves
in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc. These
observations are as old as the world and have allowed us to create a clear
distinction between male and female sexes regarding their predisposition to
violence.”
“Throughout
history,” reports The Economist magazine,
“men have killed men roughly 97 times more often than women have killed women.”
The
male inclination for violence has a lot to do with testosterone, which is most
plentiful in young men who, in their natural habitat, fought other males to
impress women. (You can head down to Fort Lauderdale during Spring Break to
document this phenomenon yourself.)
Of course, he is right. Of course, we understand that these
statistics have something to do with the female body’s testosterone deficiency.
And yet, I promise you, the people who laugh at Hillary’s lame jokes do not believe it.
To their mind women are strong because feminists say they are strong, women are
powerful because feminists say they are empowered. Anyone who says otherwise is
promoting a harmful stereotype and must be suppressed.
Do we really have to take statements out of context all the time? I guess its not only women and liberals are the only ones who do this.
ReplyDeleteI see the speech is here:
http://time.com/4721094/hillary-clinton-georgetown-transcript/
----
...At a time when sexual violence continues to be used as a strategy by terrorist groups, when women are being recruited by ISIS and Boko Haram, evidence suggests leaders who want to do more to guard against terrorism and violence should work even harder to help support and enable the participation of women. Now, before anybody jumps to any conclusions, I will state, clearly, women are not inherently more peaceful than men. That is a stereotype. That belongs in the alternative reality.
But, history does show that when women are at the peace table, they bring together coalitions, and they work really hard to build consensus. And they are the ones most likely to shine a bright light on issues of human rights, transitional justice, national reconciliation and economic renewal.
---
So clearly she was simply adding a cautionary qualifier to her advocacy for the inclusion women in a peace processing.
And for supporting evidence for Clinton's qualifier, it looks like most of the SJW are women, and they not acting peaceably or kind, even if their violence is merely suppressing free speech by chants like "Transphobic piece of shit."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1P_1mLlJik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1P_1mLlJik
Perhaps we can say this is part of the "dark side of empathy" that enables unreflective sympathy for one side, and aggression against the other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/09/the-violence-of-empathy/407155/
Or in ambition, think of MacBeth, and the poor weak-willed general being goaded by his ambitious wife into murdering the king.
So if you include "violence by proxy" women may have just as much will to it as anyone. They just prefer to not do the dirty work themselves.
I prefer the term Cntl-Left to alt-left. The Left wants Control.
ReplyDelete"women may have just as much will to it as anyone. They just prefer to not do the dirty work themselves."
ReplyDeleteI guess they want a man to do it for them. :-D
So much for the fish/bicycle theory.
My view is, a man needs a woman like a hunter needs an accordion.
Women are different. To think they are the same is kind of silly. Though their bravery at times cannot be questioned. The story of resistance women in France who suffered torture unto death rather than talk comes to mind. I believe there about the same percentage of women who are brave, cowardly, or in between just as men have proven to be.
ReplyDeleteTrigger warning said... I guess they want a man to do it for them. :-D
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and as history and science teaches us, there are plenty of stupid men willing to act violently to impress a woman.
And for ambitious women, the ideal is to use one foolish man to do her dirty work, and keep another white knight on the side to protect her from the first man acting violent against her when he finds out she's not that impressed by the quality of his services.
There's perhaps even a label for this power arrangement, hypoagency.
https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/the-hypoagency-scam-women-use-to-manipulate-men/
---
A lot of you have already seen this video where Whoopi Goldberg points out that a woman shouldn’t hit a man and expect that a man won’t hit back. The other women in the video are aghast at what Whoopi Goldberg is saying. There’s an acronym for this, DHMIAG, or “don’t hit me I’m a girl”. What’s missing from that acronym is the second part, “but I can hit men because I’m a girl”.
This is an example of how women use hypoagency, the idea that women are never actors but only acted upon, to manipulate men. Hypoagency is also tied to women being “weaker” than men. In the DHMIAG example, there are two things going on:
First, if a woman hits a man it’s assumed to be a man’s fault. The woman is only reacting to what the man did so he “deserved” it.
Second, the man isn’t supposed to hit back, that is engage in self defense, against women because it was somehow his fault that she hit him.
Third, the man isn’t supposed to hit back because the women is basically equivalent a child or a pet.
---