December 09, 2018
Stalinist #metoo Witches
Dana Mathewson
The left has for a long time now been viewing the world through one or another lens, and demanding that the rest of us do too (or else admit that we are intellectual clods). For years it was the racial lens, where we whites were forced to admit we were all racists, and it kept being ratcheted up to the point (almost) where if you didn't drink black coffee (or maybe if you did -- I'm not sure which) you were a racist. It's gotten so far out on that limb that it's starting to be ridiculous, and they started having to find another field to plow.
SO -- enter #MeToo, where Sexual Abuse is the new lens through which everything must be viewed, and interestingly enough, it's leftists who are getting nabbed. No matter, every man is now a rapist and every woman is a rape victim, declaring in a little-girl voice how she was attacked at some venue she can't even describe, where no friend of hers will back her up, but raped she was, yes-siree. A woman dare not go to a male dentist to have her teeth cleaned anymore.
The problem as I see it now is, this Mankato professor misplaced the memo and sounded off on G-d about a year too early and has made the whole thing supremely ridiculous. In other words, she broke the lens long before its usefulness had run out. Who can be accused now? The Lord is NOT going to start Tweeting in His own defense, though I would dearly love it if He were to visit Mankato with a horrendous blizzard that did not touch the surrounding area. But then, I have a vindictive streak. Hey, doesn't the left tell us WE are the haters?
A WORD FROM TIM:
The Soviets and other Marxists used to employ the false confession as a tool to advance their agenda; get people accused of this or that thought crime to confess publicly, to force the general public to believe something wrong had actually occurred. This is exactly what the Left is employing with the #meetoo movement. All men must admit guilt of sexually abusing women, so that they can not oppose the Left on anything else, and so, too, the general public sees that "resistance is futile". They have done the same with race for a long, long time now. In fact, the charge of racism has gotten silly - something bandied about as an ad-hominem. Now of course they are doing it with sex.
Case in point; a number of years ago I wrote about the Irish who were enslaved on Barbados by the British after the battle of Kinsale. Guess what? I was called a racist for saying that white people were sometimes enslaved too. So racism is whatever one wishes it to be, at least these days. Now rape is whatever the Left says it is, even if it is a comment that they makes some snowflake uncomfortable. For example, a little while back a Progressive college professor made the old joke in an elevator "first floor, ladies lingerie" and a woman's studies prof filed a complaint against him for sexual harassment. She was not offended in the least; it was a tactic to promote the power of feminists to control speech. Little more. Fortunately the liberal professor got "woke" in the true fashion and refused to apologize to this Bi, er, woman.
I think Dana is right; this anti-God screed was a toe in the water, too early, certainly. I think the Mankato prof (anyone else notice the similarity between Mankato and Marcato, as in Adrian, the name of the witch in Rosemary's Baby?)wanted to see if it would fly. And, of course, was counting on people not having read the Bible and knowing that Mary actually said Yes when Gabriel asked her to be mother to the Messiah. Ignorance is the Left's greatest weapon.
The left has for a long time now been viewing the world through one or another lens, and demanding that the rest of us do too (or else admit that we are intellectual clods). For years it was the racial lens, where we whites were forced to admit we were all racists, and it kept being ratcheted up to the point (almost) where if you didn't drink black coffee (or maybe if you did -- I'm not sure which) you were a racist. It's gotten so far out on that limb that it's starting to be ridiculous, and they started having to find another field to plow.
SO -- enter #MeToo, where Sexual Abuse is the new lens through which everything must be viewed, and interestingly enough, it's leftists who are getting nabbed. No matter, every man is now a rapist and every woman is a rape victim, declaring in a little-girl voice how she was attacked at some venue she can't even describe, where no friend of hers will back her up, but raped she was, yes-siree. A woman dare not go to a male dentist to have her teeth cleaned anymore.
The problem as I see it now is, this Mankato professor misplaced the memo and sounded off on G-d about a year too early and has made the whole thing supremely ridiculous. In other words, she broke the lens long before its usefulness had run out. Who can be accused now? The Lord is NOT going to start Tweeting in His own defense, though I would dearly love it if He were to visit Mankato with a horrendous blizzard that did not touch the surrounding area. But then, I have a vindictive streak. Hey, doesn't the left tell us WE are the haters?
A WORD FROM TIM:
The Soviets and other Marxists used to employ the false confession as a tool to advance their agenda; get people accused of this or that thought crime to confess publicly, to force the general public to believe something wrong had actually occurred. This is exactly what the Left is employing with the #meetoo movement. All men must admit guilt of sexually abusing women, so that they can not oppose the Left on anything else, and so, too, the general public sees that "resistance is futile". They have done the same with race for a long, long time now. In fact, the charge of racism has gotten silly - something bandied about as an ad-hominem. Now of course they are doing it with sex.
Case in point; a number of years ago I wrote about the Irish who were enslaved on Barbados by the British after the battle of Kinsale. Guess what? I was called a racist for saying that white people were sometimes enslaved too. So racism is whatever one wishes it to be, at least these days. Now rape is whatever the Left says it is, even if it is a comment that they makes some snowflake uncomfortable. For example, a little while back a Progressive college professor made the old joke in an elevator "first floor, ladies lingerie" and a woman's studies prof filed a complaint against him for sexual harassment. She was not offended in the least; it was a tactic to promote the power of feminists to control speech. Little more. Fortunately the liberal professor got "woke" in the true fashion and refused to apologize to this Bi, er, woman.
I think Dana is right; this anti-God screed was a toe in the water, too early, certainly. I think the Mankato prof (anyone else notice the similarity between Mankato and Marcato, as in Adrian, the name of the witch in Rosemary's Baby?)wanted to see if it would fly. And, of course, was counting on people not having read the Bible and knowing that Mary actually said Yes when Gabriel asked her to be mother to the Messiah. Ignorance is the Left's greatest weapon.
Dana Mathewson replies:
Speaking of the slavery meme, nobody has ever "gotten into" that with me, but if they ever do, I have two questions for them. 1. How many countries have practiced slavery since the dawn of time (answer: all of them, and it's still going on), and 2. How many countries have fought bitter wars to end it (answer: one, the U.S.). Democrats won't be able to answer either of these, and the second one will make them profoundly uncomfortable since it was they who opposed (and lost) the war.
Jack Kemp adds:
Speaking of the slavery meme, nobody has ever "gotten into" that with me, but if they ever do, I have two questions for them. 1. How many countries have practiced slavery since the dawn of time (answer: all of them, and it's still going on), and 2. How many countries have fought bitter wars to end it (answer: one, the U.S.). Democrats won't be able to answer either of these, and the second one will make them profoundly uncomfortable since it was they who opposed (and lost) the war.
Jack Kemp adds:
Britain was also involved in an international anti-slavery
movement in the 19th Century. But they did not fight a bitter Civil War over
slavery.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:58 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.
1
This is another area where the "Red Pill" viewpoint is useful, or at least interesting. To quote Jim of Jim's Blog, making an extreme case within that paradigm:
There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face ... and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.
Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.
The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.
This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him. [In the following which I've not included, he makes the case this is exactly the sort of thing you must do.]
Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don't like having betas around, just as they don't like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.
While I'm uncertain about the degree to which he's correct about women when around what he calls betas who's failed a shit test (and there are many subsets of that although most people use a simple alpha/beta divide, but note his "contemptible" qualifier), and thinking more, it might hinge on their being nominally in a position of power over them (in reality, not so much), I will attest that the rest is correct. I've seen several cases of this, in one extreme a women destroyed an entire company by getting the CEO to purge the critical software architect and lead programmer (myself) who was polite in the face of what in retrospect was clearly a shit test. No product, no company, no job for her either, but the woman didn't care. She was competent at programming, it wasn't anything like SJW entryism.
In his essays he's provided a number of other examples of women "not under the firm control of an alpha" destroying companies, I'm sure you can think of examples like HP, perhaps the most notorious one. And you can see the complete lack of self-awareness in that case by Carley Fiorina then running for Senator in California, a state in which she ruined so many careers.
But the gravamen of this argument, the degree of loathing that can turn into accusations of sexual assault ... does that sound plausible? We know women will make them up, going to extreme accusations of gang rape on broken glass made up from whole cloth, as part of their relationship or an attempt to gain one with another man. In that context, Jim's assertion doesn't sound very extreme at all....
There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face ... and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.
Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.
The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.
This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him. [In the following which I've not included, he makes the case this is exactly the sort of thing you must do.]
Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don't like having betas around, just as they don't like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.
While I'm uncertain about the degree to which he's correct about women when around what he calls betas who's failed a shit test (and there are many subsets of that although most people use a simple alpha/beta divide, but note his "contemptible" qualifier), and thinking more, it might hinge on their being nominally in a position of power over them (in reality, not so much), I will attest that the rest is correct. I've seen several cases of this, in one extreme a women destroyed an entire company by getting the CEO to purge the critical software architect and lead programmer (myself) who was polite in the face of what in retrospect was clearly a shit test. No product, no company, no job for her either, but the woman didn't care. She was competent at programming, it wasn't anything like SJW entryism.
In his essays he's provided a number of other examples of women "not under the firm control of an alpha" destroying companies, I'm sure you can think of examples like HP, perhaps the most notorious one. And you can see the complete lack of self-awareness in that case by Carley Fiorina then running for Senator in California, a state in which she ruined so many careers.
But the gravamen of this argument, the degree of loathing that can turn into accusations of sexual assault ... does that sound plausible? We know women will make them up, going to extreme accusations of gang rape on broken glass made up from whole cloth, as part of their relationship or an attempt to gain one with another man. In that context, Jim's assertion doesn't sound very extreme at all....
Posted by: Anonymous at December 09, 2018 10:19 AM (FPIRN)
28kb generated in CPU 0.0088, elapsed 0.5132 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.507 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.507 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
