For the last week, the mainstream news media has been filled with stories about how some White House aide had some fights with his ex-wives. The most serious specific allegation is that they had a fight 2 years into their 5-year marriage, and she ran off to the shower, and he opened the shower door, grabbed her by the shoulders, and yelled at her. She also said that the good times outweighed the bad, that he is a good man, and that she is now consumed with jealousy about his new girlfriend.
This is really trivial. It is hard to see how anyone could think that this was relevant to his White House job, even if it were true. Something else must be going on here.
I think that we are witnessing a new movement taking hold. A coalition of feminists and white knights is promoting the belief that in any dispute between a man and a woman, we must always take the side of the woman. They are aided and abetted by opportunists, who want to sell gossip or take down enemies, and cowards, who are afraid to express their true opinions.
As evidence for this, I point to the increasing ridiculousness of the accusations. It is as if the feminists and white knights deliberately want to make a spectacle out of baseless accusations, in order to make the point that we must all take the woman's side even if it has no merit.
Another target in the news is Woody Allen. The accusations against him don't make any sense, and were obviously cooked up to support a child custody dispute in court.
Furthermore, the accusers in most of these cases are pretty obviously mentally ill. The publicity is not helping them, because it is fueling their delusions, shame, anger, paranoia, and weirdo obsessions.
So what is the point of these accusations? What is the endgame that the feminists and white knights seek?
Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe that we should move to a matriarchal society. You see it from Hillary Clinton and others who say "the future is female". But you also see it from some men who consider themselves traditional conservatives. They seem to believe that marriages will be better if the husband is under a constant blackmail threat. That is, if things go bad and the husband does not behave as the wife wishes, then she will claim some sort of abuse, and he will be ruined. She will get the house, the money, and the kids, and he will be permanently blackballed from any respectable position in our society. His future employers will be told to fire him, as what happened to Porter, the White House aid.
What if we passed a law saying that in any dispute between a white man and a black man, the white man is always to be believed and the the black man is not allowed to testify? Everyone would agree that his would just be a trick to enslave blacks. Likewise, MeTooism is a trick to enslave men. The purpose to blackmail all men by holding them under a threat of an accusation from many years that will be impossible to refute.
3 comments:
Roger, don't fall for the tradcons. They are as bad as feminists! Take religion: the causality is backwards. Being more devout is about personality traits and also women drag men to church. It doesn't mean religion is causing more stable marriages. Christian religion has been feminized since the 13th century. Refuting Tradcon Male Shaming
Yes, a lot of Christianity has been feminized, with cheering from tradcons.
Christopher Lasch in The True and Only Heaven - Progress and Its Critics: There is no need to belabor the familiar point that reverence for maternal "influence" and the domestic virtues stood at the very center of middle-class morality. What has to be emphasized, in the face of the equally familiar claim that the nineteenth-century "cult of domesticity" served only to enforce the patriarchal subordination of women and to subject the lower classes to "social control," is that it had progressive, not reactionary implications, since a well-ordered family life allegedly generated the demand for improvements that assured the unlimited expansion of capitalist production. The "cult of domesticity" was part of the rationale for reforms designed to alleviate poverty, shorten the hours of labor, and raise the working class out of the brutalizing conditions of mere subsistence. A Massachusetts bookbinder, pleading for the eight-hour day in 1870, pointed out that "a multiplication of happy homes around the city, would stimulate all industry, and greatly increase the exchange of products.... As people are elevated and improved in body and mind, the wants of body and mind are multiplied. On this simple fact depend all trade, prosperity and wealth."
Post a Comment