Toxic femininity

 

Not quite at random, not random at all. Each from Instapundit.

First

NEW CIVILITY WATCH: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We Progressives Are Going to ‘Run Train.’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) used a vulgar sexual term in an interview with the Washington Post published Wednesday, threatening conservatives that Democrats would “run train on the progressive agenda.”

The term “run train” refers to a gang rape. According to UrbanDictionary.com, the “top definition” for the term “run train” is “to ‘gangbang’ a girl with several friends.”

The last time such a phrase was mentioned in regards to DC was via Creepy Porn Lawyer™ Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick during the Kavanaugh hearings, as this typo-filled article from September at Heavy.com notes:

Swetncik [sic] signed a sworn affidavit that Kavanaugh and Judge were part of a groups [sic] of teenagers who, in the early 1980s, perpetrated gang rapes by drugging girls with grain alcohol spiked with Quaaludes and the[n] “ran trains.” And Swetnick said she herself was raped. She does not say Kavanaugh raped her but was present.

(The following month, The Hill reported, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) referred Swetnick and Avenatti to the Justice Dept. for investigation.)

Flash-forward to January, and as Peter D’Abrosca of Big League Politics writes, “Ocasio-Cortez Normalizes Rape Culture With ‘Run Train’ Comments:”

AOC mentioned nothing about whether she’ll ask for the consent of the Republican Party before she gangbangs them into submission. What if they’re just not that into her? Is she literally threatening to rape 60 million plus Republican Americans?

As James Bovard of the Mises Institute wrote in November, We Need a #MeToo Movement for Political Consent.

UPDATE: “Why attack [AOC] for using a term that means she’s going to gang rape America with progressivism? I applaud her honesty,” Andrew Klavan tweets.

Second

SHOCKER: Surprise: Genius behind man-hating Gillette ad is a radical feminist.

Carpentered by Grey Advertising for Proctor and Gamble’s razors company, it does not detail product attributes, encourage brand loyalty, instill warm feelings in buyers, or even show basic respect for consumers. Instead, the grimly lecturing spot declares masculinity itself toxic, a peril to decent society.

“Is this the best a man can get? Is it?” asks the painfully serious narrator, as a wrongdoing slideshow passes by. “We can’t hide from it. It’s been going on far too long. We can’t laugh it off, making the same old excuses.”

“I guess the guy at the ad agency missed the lesson about not taking a dump on the people you want to buy your stuff,” cracked comedian Steven Crowder.

“The guy at the ad agency” is actually philosophically unpleasant feminist Kim Gehrig. Hiring her to court the male market is like expecting to accrue impressive rainbow flag sale numbers with spiels from Farrakhan.

Harsh but fair. Plus:

Gehrig’s new Gillette effort states her bias boldly by intercutting allusions to abusive acts with images of romantic heterosexuality.

A black-and-white cartoon scene that flashes past shows men whistling at a woman. In another scant bit, a guy sees a pretty female pedestrian. He steps after her but is restrained by a companion. “Not cool,” the restrainer admonishes.

Expressions of attraction and related pursuits are natural. They lead to humans reproducing – which is how Gehrig got here, though she might be horrified to learn that.

Adweek pronounced Gehrig’s group libel the “Ad of the Week.” Gehrig’s efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV.

Therein lies an issue worth note. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted: “the only ones lauding the Gillette ad work in media/advertising. everyone else sees it for what it is: a smarmy, condescending virtue signal aimed at the hardworking decent men they have been price-gouging for years.”

At this writing, Gillette’s YouTube posting of “We Believe” has received 40,000 “thumbs down” votes and only 4,300 positive ratings.

As I said yesterday, this is another example of how the people running American institutions now tend to perform for an audience of their peers rather than focus on doing their jobs.

Third

PHILIP CARL SALZMAN: The Toxic Mission To Re-Engineer Men.

The communists in the USSR and Cuba tried to invent a “new man,” a “socialist man” who would give up his individuality in order to advance the interests of “the people.” But the population never bought it, and oppressive security agencies were imposed to coerce people to live according to socialist ideals. That is why the “beneficiaries” of communism were delighted when their totalitarian societies fell.

Today, with the freeing of females from traditional role constraints, it is still primarily men who do the dangerous and dirty jobs, who make up most of the first responders and the military who defend us, and who, as scientists and engineers, continue to address the natural world for understanding and to serve our needs. These are some of the ways that the characteristics and qualities of men benefit society. And it is the job of socialization to direct the traits of men into constructive channels, a more realistic and productive strategy than trying to turn males into females.

Yes, being a man is not stress-free, and sometimes we have inner struggles. But do women not also have inner struggles, and is that not in our nature as human beings? Feminists who simplistically argue that women’s psychological and other problems are all and always the fault of “toxic” men, are doing a very human thing: blaming others for their problems. That such sad naivete has been adopted by our governments, scientific organizations, and schools and universities does not reflect a very sound understanding of people or the world. Even more so for psychologists, who should know better.

True.

Fourth

PRETTY LATE TO THE #METOO PARTY: Female Economists Push Their Field Toward A #MeToo Reckoning.

Poll position

Rush Limbaugh discussed the dog that didn’t bark in the night: Rush Limbaugh notices something glaringly missing from border wall discussion.

He specifically noted that no meaningful polls were published after President Donald Trump delivered an Oval Office address Tuesday in which he explained the ongoing battles to the public and implored Democrat to end them by agreeing to secure the southern U.S. border.

“There has been no polling data that we could find anywhere following Trump’s speech,” Limbaugh said Friday. “There weren’t any Frank Luntz focus groups with any undecideds out there.”

“They didn’t gather any Trump voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and ask them if they’re still behind Trump. The media didn’t do any of the stuff they usually do. We have no idea what the valued and very wise independents thought of Trump’s speech.”

But polling has been done and the data are as you would expect: Polling Data Shows Nearly 80% Of Americans Consider Illegal Immigration A Serious Problem/Crisis

As it says at the link:

It’s the data most responsible for the sudden shift in Democrats’ tone this week as more and more in Congress give the media hints that they are willing to allocate funding for at least some of the border protection measures being pushed by President Trump. You see, it’s not that these Democrats in Congress think it’s the right thing to do but rather that the vast majority of Americans (nearly 80%) think it’s the right thing to do and so the hands of Democrats are now being forced to do something or face a serious political backlash heading into 2020.

And you know what? You’d get the same results in Australia if we did the same polling here.

The most serious problem of our time

Polling Data Shows Nearly 80% Of Americans Consider Illegal Immigration A Serious Problem/Crisis

As it says at the link:

It’s the data most responsible for the sudden shift in Democrats’ tone this week as more and more in Congress give the media hints that they are willing to allocate funding for at least some of the border protection measures being pushed by President Trump. You see, it’s not that these Democrats in Congress think it’s the right thing to do but rather that the vast majority of Americans (nearly 80%) think it’s the right thing to do and so the hands of Democrats are now being forced to do something or face a serious political backlash heading into 2020.

Who’d a thought it, grass is bad for you

From Second Thoughts On Pot.

Berenson’s book is a game-changer. In his New Yorker piece, Malcolm Gladwell writes straightforwardly about the overwhelming scientific evidence that marijuana is a hell of a lot more problematic than many of us think. Excerpt:

Berenson begins his book with an account of a conversation he had with his wife, a psychiatrist who specializes in treating mentally ill criminals. They were discussing one of the many grim cases that cross her desk—“the usual horror story, somebody who’d cut up his grandmother or set fire to his apartment.” Then his wife said something like “Of course, he was high, been smoking pot his whole life.”

Of course? I said.

Yeah, they all smoke.

Well . . . other things too, right?

Sometimes. But they all smoke.

Berenson used to be an investigative reporter for the Times, where he covered, among other things, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Then he left the paper to write a popular series of thrillers. At the time of his conversation with his wife, he had the typical layman’s view of cannabis, which is that it is largely benign. His wife’s remark alarmed him, and he set out to educate himself. Berenson is constrained by the same problem the National Academy of Medicine faced—that, when it comes to marijuana, we really don’t know very much. But he has a reporter’s tenacity, a novelist’s imagination, and an outsider’s knack for asking intemperate questions. The result is disturbing.

I’ll say. Read his piece to find out why. Or even better, check out Stephanie Mencimer’s detailed report in Mother Jones, the San Francisco-based left-wing magazine. I’m sure it’s going to wind up subscribers.

The Feminist Fixer on marriage

Everything below is the entire post from What Tucker Carlson gets about men and women that the rest of the media do not.

I’m convinced Tucker Carlson is the only member of the media who’s willing to report uncomfortable facts so we can solve problems rather than run from them.

This past week Carlson said in a monologue that everyone’s goal should be “strong American families.” Sounds innocuous, right? Yet it isn’t, for precisely the reason Carlson gives: America’s elite refuse to address the greatest impediment to reaching this goal.

The dearth of employed men and the subsequent disintegration of marriage.

For stating the obvious, Carlson has been vilified. (Just Google his name and you’ll find all the articles denouncing him for bringing this matter to light.) Even Red Lobster has pulled their advertising from his show. (Note to Red Lobster: What cowards you are!)

Journalists are supposed to report the facts, not make people feel good about those facts. But our politically correct culture no longer allows problems that cause people discomfort to be discussed, let alone solved. So the problems just sit there and wait to be noticed.

And grow bigger and bigger by the day.

The most controversial subject of the last 25 years has unquestionably been the absence of mothers from the home and what this means for children, families and society as a whole. (That was, incidentally, the subject of my first book.)

But America’s new controversial subject, which is evident from the backlash to Carlson’s monologue, is hypergamy, or the desire of most women to marry men who make more money than they do.

You can see why this poses a problem, what with so many women now out-earning men. And yet the stubborn reality of human nature persists. How will we marry our brave new world with the reality of human nature?

There are two main reasons women—even feminist women—prefer to marry men who make more than they do:

1.Because women have babies and men do not, and women want and need the option to cut back or move out of the workforce to care for those babies. No matter how “equal” the sexes seem prior to having kids, it all changes when children come along. At that point, sex differences become glaring.

“It seems to me there’s a blindness to childbearing in gender role statistical analyses,” notes “htg” in response to this article last year in The New York Times about wives who earn more than their husbands. “The simple truth is that I, or any other man, will never be able to grow a human fetus…

Taken to the extreme, the [admittedly somewhat harsh] logic goes like this: the wife will always have a role as the incubator, food supply, and instinctual caretaker; but if the husband isn’t feeding and sheltering the family, then he has no other role and should be discarded. That is not how I or my wife live our lives. We have both been stay-at-home parents at various points of our life, both are active parents, and both are now earning decent money. But despite our marital equality, we also have honest discussions about how the biological differences between men and women have shaped our relationship. After you have lived through pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and maternal instincts, they are impossible to ignore.”

2.Because completely upending traditional gender roles, or having a marriage in which the wife and not the husband is the primary breadwinner, is problematic to say the least. And there’s ample research to support this.

I remember when Michael Noer of Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled “Don’t Marry Career Women.” It caused quite the ruckus. In it, Noer highlighted research that shows marriages in which wives work more than 35 hours per week are less stable than marriages in which the wife works less or not at all.

“A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.”

Again, that was 2006. Imagine if Noer wrote that article today! And yet he might as well, for the precarious nature of these marriages hasn’t changed.

In 2013, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a paper that looked at 4,000 married couples in America and found, as Mona Chalabi noted on NPR, that

“once a woman started to earn more than her husband, divorce rates increased. Surprisingly, though, this data showed that whether the wife earns a little bit more or a lot more doesn’t actually make much of a difference. So the researchers concluded from that that what really matters is the mere fact of a woman earning more.”

In 2014, Lori Gottleib wrote in The New York Times about a study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage” which found that couples in egalitarian marriages, or marriages that make no allowance for sex differences, have less sex.

“If men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming, couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.”

In 2018, researchers Marta Murray-Close and Misty L. Heggeness found that in marriages in which the woman is the primary breadwinner, both husbands and wives are uncomfortable enough with these circumstances to fudge the numbers and suggest the gap is smaller than it actually is.

In other words, there’s plenty of data to bolster Carlson’s claim that we “consider some of the effects” of women out-earning men. The fact is, he’s right. It’s a lose-lose scenario for everyone.

For men, surely, because an unemployed man who lacks purpose in his life is downright dangerous. And for women, since they can’t find “good” (read: educated and employed) men they want to marry. And for children, who as a result of all this grow up without a dad. It’s a G-damn mess, and no one wants to talk about it except Tucker Carlson.

And that makes him the bad guy?

No. It makes the rest of the media cowards.

 

Up against the wall

There really should be no issue about border protection. You either have a nation state or you don’t. Even without denying welfare to non-citizens, a nation is not a nation unless it controls its borders. That the Democrats, and the left generally, sees advantage in bringing in new welfare-dependent hordes to maintain their share of the vote is the only reason this is ongoing. Increasing the numbers of those who vote for a living is the sole reason the left supports open borders. Madness everywhere – Germany, France, Sweden, the UK – but those at the top on the left will take their graft and be gone behind their walls and gated communities by the time the full costs are being paid, just not paid by them.

If you would like to understand the view from the right, there is no one who may have put it better than John Hinderaker at Powerline: Trump Kills It. Here’s the final para:

Our country is being invaded, as President Trump and most Americans understand. It is far past time to defend ourselves. President Trump wins this one, hands down.

The local press is all left and far left, alas including The Oz. It has columnists on both sides, but the editorial line on things like this might as well be Fairfax. Start with its Froeign Affairs editor: Sense and nonsense in Trump’s Mexican stand-off.

Donald Trump gave a frankly weird speech, his first prime-time television address to the nation as President, about illegal immigration and the need for a wall along the US’s southern border with Mexico.

And then this from its Washington Correspondent: Donald Trump address: Heavy-handed tactic to fix his own crisis. The Turnbull Daily Non-News. From his story begins:

Donald Trump has a right to try to exert greater control over the US border with Mexico but his claims today of a national security and humanitarian crisis are overblown.

For an accurate assessment, this from Slate, as standard left as you can find.

And for more memes, you can go here: MID-WEEK IN PICTURES: IT’S THE CHUCK & NANCY SHOW!. This is the best addition to the ones already posted.