Objectifying a Woman in a Sexy Cheerleader Outfit cannot bring Respect to that Woman as she dons her Air Force Uniform

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

There is a connection between lower physical standards for women in the military and sexual harassment and assault of these women.  Some men resent the women in the service academies because they can score higher by doing less (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  For in their eyes these women would not even be there had it not been for the preferential treatment they get in the form of lower physical standards.  They don’t respect them as peers.  And think of them only as the weaker sex.  Objectifying them.  Thinking that they are good for only one thing.  Perhaps thinking the only reason why some are still in the service is because they advanced through the ranks on their backs.  Pleasing their commanding officers with sexual favors in return for promotions.  And better duty assignments.  Which leads to these horrendous acts of sexual harassment and assault.

Man can evolve from Neanderthals.  And has.  But you can’t take the Neanderthal out of man.  Some can suppress it better than others.  But some can never lift their knuckles from the ground.  Figuratively, of course.  And will resort to bad/criminal behavior.  Women aren’t asking for this trouble.  Their government just gave it to them by creating an environment where men have to do more to score as high as women score.  And something like this just isn’t going to make things any better (see Seahawks cheerleader and Air Force first lieutenant Alicia Quaco by Jay Busbee posted 1/30/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Quaco, 25, is a first lieutenant in the Air Force. A graduate of the Air Force Academy, she had some work to do to convince her superiors that part-timing as a Sea Gal was a good use of her time.

Is she a sexy cheerleader who is also a first lieutenant in the Air Force?  Or is she a first lieutenant in the Air Force who is also a sexy cheerleader.  I wonder what the men who serve under her will think.  Will they be thinking about the mission at hand?  Or will they be thinking about that poster of her in her cheerleader outfit?  With her toned midriff exposed.  Her tight shorts that leave little to the imagination.  Her sexy top showing ample cleavage.  That gorgeous mane of blonde hair cascading down her shoulders.  Those long, sexy legs.  Yes, I wonder what the men who must report to her will be thinking about when they see her.

Her Air Force uniform is anything but sexy.  Because being sexy has nothing to do with the mission.  In fact, being too sexy may only distract from the mission.  As the teenage men serving under her are little more than boys who buy Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  Or magazines that are a little racier.  The kind of things many have tried to limit the sale of around military installations.  For they tend to demean and objectify women.  Which can cause problems when men have to work with women.

Empowering women by being sexy and empowering women with careers in the military just somehow don’t go together.  Parents tell their daughters not to send nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends because they will be out there in cyberspace forever.  Coming back to haunt them when they apply for their first job.  Or run for political office.  Imagine this first lieutenant reporting one day to an international command.  Attending a meeting as a staff officer with foreign dignitaries.  Who may be more interested in the cheerleader officer rather than the business at hand.

If women have had to work harder to be respected in the military this cannot help their cause.  For objectifying a woman in a sexy cheerleader outfit just cannot bring respect to that woman as she dons her Air Force uniform.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2014

Week in Review

We have antidiscrimination laws in place to prevent employers from hiring based on skin color instead of ability.  We drug test in sports to keep poorer athletes from using drugs to become better athletes.  As that isn’t fair to athletes who play by the rules.  People rail about unequal pay for women doing the same job as men.  Saying if they are doing the same job as a man they should get the same paycheck as a man.

We do these things to keep things fair.  So the best job applicant gets the job.  The best athlete wins the competition.  And everyone is paid according to their ability.  Without a lower pay scale for women.  Of course, all these ideas of fairness go out the window when it comes to the military (see Sexual harassment in the military: what female cadets have to say by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor, posted 1/10/2014 on Yahoo! News).

A congressionally mandated Pentagon report, released Friday, gauges sexual harassment and assault at America’s service academies and catalogs comments made by students during focus groups….

The focus-group comments of the cadets offer some insights into why the cadets themselves think the problem is pervasive, and how to best handle it.

When sexual harassment and assaults are prosecuted on campus, they think it might be a good idea to publicize them a bit more, even while protecting the anonymity of victims.

“When these things happen, my concern is, Are they being at all like hushed up?” one West Point cadet told Pentagon interviewers. “I think if we wanted to raise awareness and like say that this is a problem, why isn’t it being publicized when it does happen, even anonymously..?”

A clear theme that comes through in the survey, too, is that cadets of both genders feel that because the physical standards for female cadets are not as strenuous as those for male cadets, the men may have less respect for the women…

Another female cadet noted that because the physical standards are different for men and women at the academies, it is possible for women to get higher scores than men – even though they might not have to do as many push-ups or run a mile as quickly. “That eats him alive,” said one female cadet of a male cadet friend of hers.

Sexual harassment and assault are unacceptable everywhere.  There are no excuses or justification for bad/criminal behavior.  Even if you create a hostile environment by placing men and women together in a competitive environment that makes the men work harder than the women to get a passing grade.

The bigger issue is that the military is now trying to integrate women into combat roles.  Like infantry units that actually use physical strength to survive in a life and death situation.  And the stronger you are the better your chances are of surviving.  Which means anyone getting through military training by meeting lower standards has a lower chance of surviving in combat whenever physical strength determines the outcome of a fight.  Putting these women at risk.  And reducing the fighting strength of the unit.  Which will lose fighting strength once the weaker members (those meeting lower standards during training) are killed off.  Which doesn’t seem fair to the women.  Or the unit.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT201: “War on women? Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 20th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Today Men smoke Marlboro Cigarettes to connect to that Rugged Cowboy on the Billboards

If you had parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II you’ve probably noticed something about them.  They were a hardy breed.  Especially the men.  Sure, we all know someone who changed the oil in their own car.  But back then it wasn’t uncommon to change the sparkplugs, shock absorbers, exhaust system, brakes, ball joints, etc.  They even bought new tires and put them onto the rims themselves.  As well as fixing everything that needed repair around the house.  From the furnace to the toilet to the garbage disposal to installing a new roof on the house.

And all of this after they got home from work.  Or on the weekend after cutting, edging, fertilizing and watering the grass.  So the grass was lush and green for the kids to play on with Dad.  When he wasn’t teaching them to ride a bike.  How to protect themselves in a fight.  Or helping them with their science project.  Getting so involved that their kids turned in things they knew their teachers must have known they didn’t build themselves.  But that’s how it was back then.  There was nothing too complex or too difficult that Dad couldn’t roll up his sleeves and do.  Sure, there may have been some cuss words.  But that rugged can-do attitude forged in the fires of the Great Depression and World War II provided a feeling of safety and comfort in the home whenever Dad was there.  As Dad was both provider and protector.

Today men smoke Marlboro cigarettes to connect to that rugged cowboy on the billboards.  Back then they were that cowboy.  Tough men who volunteered to fight in World War II.  The last time that this type of American man was the rule and not the exception.  But after the war the size of government grew.  With the least manly men of all, liberals, leading the way.  Bringing out the softer and more feminine side of men.  Men who cry.  And explore their feelings.  Eating quiche instead of steak.  Diluting the manliness in them.  As any form of manliness became a socially undesirable trait.

The Left’s Objectification of Women cause Men to Linger in Adolescence instead of Growing Up and Maturing

It started with the Sexual Revolution.  When we went from a family-centered society to one that viewed the idea of family itself as oppression.  Women were encouraged to be sexual things instead of a wife and mother.  Birth control and abortion made it possible to enjoy the sexual favors of a woman without being in a committed relationship.  So men did.  Using women to satisfy their lust.  And only for that.  Allowing women to go on to build a career.  While men began to degenerate into a state of permanent adolescence.  Being that young man who has but one thought on his mind all of the time.

Exit the cowboy.   And enter the government.  LBJ gave us the Great Society.  And Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Giving rise to absentee fathers.  And single mothers raising their children alone in government-built public housing.  For the provider and protector left the household.  As the government stepped in to take over that role.  And did a horrible job.  Destroying inner-city families.  As crime-ridden public housing pushed these fatherless boys into gangs.  And drugs.  Which migrated to and infected their schools like a cancer.  Boys who grew up seeing the new normal.  Women are only for sexual pleasure.  Not marrying and raising a family with.  As their children followed the same path.  Growing up without a father.  With the state being provider and protector.  Poorly, of course.

As men lingered in their adolescence they never fully grew up and matured.  The very people who are responsible for this—the liberal left—blamed men for their brutishness.  Saying it was the natural state of man.  And soon made the very act of responding to the attractiveness of a woman as a form of sexual harassment.  The government provides free birth control and access to abortion so women can be as sexually active as possible.  The left attacks the censors and pushes the boundaries on television and in the movies.  Today broadcast television shows often carry warnings like “Strong Coarse Language” and “Intensely Suggestive Dialogue.”  Sexual imagery bombards us.  For sex sells.  It even sells sex on broadcast television.  Such as the Victoria Secret Fashion Show.  With beautiful models dressed only in underwear strut across the catwalk for one purpose.  To bring attention to their sexual parts that their sexy underwear barely covers.  So they can sell their lingerie to spice up sex in the bedroom.  They do all of this and yet attack men as being primeval and brutish when they make inappropriate comments to women.  Such as “You’re looking lovely today.”

The Archetypical Young Man Today is a bespectacled Man-Boy in a Plaid Pajama Onesie Sipping a Hot Chocolate

It’s a confusing world today.  Women are encouraged to look as beautiful as ever while men aren’t supposed to notice.  Liberals encourage them to explore their sexuality while they condemn men for wanting to enjoy that sexuality.  Pulling them even further away from marriage and family as they turn to the world of online pornography.  Further objectifying the already objectified woman.  But in cyberspace men know their advances won’t be construed as sexual harassment.  Social media even pulls the sexes further apart.  Often the only time they get together is for sex.  The Japanese young are even turning away from sex.  As the cost of living in their nanny state is so great they don’t want to be burdened with the high cost of raising a family.  Not surprisingly, life-like sex robots are a reality now in Japan.  And elsewhere.

The left has been marginalizing the role of men in today’s society.  They get women in as many male roles as possible.  Even in the brutal sport of boxing.  Which exemplifies man’s brutish nature.  But celebrates the advancement of women in a male-dominated society.  Even same-sex marriage further and subtly diminishes the role of man as the head of the household and provider and protector of the family.  By equating the sexes.  A man can have a husband or a wife.  And a woman can have a wife or a husband.  Advancing the idea of the obsolescence of man in traditional male roles.  As President Obama’s Life of Julia showed how the government can be the provider and protector for women from 3 to 67.  And the recent ad to get the young invincibles to sign up for Obamacare.  Showing what the left considers to be the archetypical young man today.  A bespectacled man-boy wearing a plaid pajama onesie while sipping a hot chocolate.  A far cry from the rugged manliness of the Marlboro Man.

Is this the ideal man women want?  Is this the man that can put a new tire on a rim?  Is this the man that can win a world war?  Is this man going to make anyone feel safe and protected?  For when it comes to raising a family who do you want as father?  Bespectacled pajama man-boy?  Or the Marlboro Man?  Paula Cole put this well in a song during the Nineties (see Where have all the cowboys gone).

Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie son
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone…

Where is my Marlboro man
Where is his shiny gun
Where is my lonely ranger
Where have all the cowboys gone

And we have a war on women?  Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.  And, sadly, it’s one men are losing.  Sad for both men and women.  And the nation.  As real men are now the exception now and not the rule.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women Doctors suffer Sexual Harassment thanks to the Left’s Sexualization of Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Australia was once part of the British Empire.  Like the United States.  And both were very Christian when they were part of the British Empire.  And they remained religious following their independence.  For a while.  But then we both drifted away from our religious teachings.  And began to lose our civility (see Most female doctors suffer sexual harassment, say researchers by Australian Associated Press posted 10/7/2013 on The Guardian).

Most women GPs suffer sexual harassment from patients during their career, according to researchers, who have written a letter to the Medical Journal of Australia.

The most common concerns are requests for inappropriate examinations, inappropriate exposure of body parts and gender-based remarks.

Touching and grabbing are also problems, according to a questionnaire-based survey by Dr Peter Bratuskins of Monash University in Melbourne.

He and his colleagues report that 54.5% of respondents have been harassed by a patient.

Before the Sexual Revolution, birth control and abortion, before we sexualized women, we treated women like ladies.  The left thinks treating a woman like a lady means inferring she’s the weaker sex and should remain barefoot and pregnant.  To forgo a career so her husband can have one.  That’s what the left thinks.  But the right doesn’t.  They believe treating a woman like a lady means we don’t sexualize her.  And we see more than just her lady parts.

The percentage of people in Australia who have no religion jumped from less than 1% to 6.7% following the Sexual Revolution.  Rising to 18.7% in 2006.  The further we move from religion the easier it is to sexualize women.  Because we believe that there is no judgment of our behavior after we die.  Which turns medical examinations into cheap sexual thrills with women doctors.  Because today we live in a sex-dominated world. Where we use sex to sell everything.  Putting sex foremost on the mind of many men.  Who interpret the women’s movement as the nod of approval to look at women as the sum total of their lady parts.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Marine Survey raises Concerns about Allowing Women to Serve in Combat Zones

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

Men and women are different.  They notice that difference during school.  In the workplace.  In single bars.  And they will probably notice that difference in a combat zone.  Where normal actions between men and women anywhere else could have drastically different consequences in a combat zone (see Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat by JULIE WATSON, Associated Press, posted 2/1/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Male Marines listed being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault as a top concern in a survey about moving women into combat jobs, and thousands indicated the change could prompt them to leave the service altogether…

Among the other top concerns listed by male Marines were possible fraternization and preferential treatment of some Marines.

Respondents also worried that women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues that could affect a unit before it’s sent to the battlefield…

Some, however, said the survey shows the need for sensitivity training and guidance from leadership so the change goes smoothly, as occurred when the military ended its policy that barred openly gay troops…

Just as the Marine Corps adjusted to the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” despite being the most resistant among the military branches, troops will likely fall in line again with this latest historical milestone, said Frakt, a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Gay men and heterosexual women are different.  Heterosexual men may be attracted to the heterosexual women in their units.  They’re not going to be attracted to gay men.  And no relationship that can result in a pregnancy is going to result between heterosexual men and gay men.  So this is not the same as repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.

About 17 percent of male Marine respondents and 4 percent of female respondents who planned to stay in the service or were undecided said they would likely leave if women move into combat positions. That number jumped to 22 percent for male Marines and 17 percent for female Marines if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs, according to the survey.

Interesting.  Some 17% of active duty female Marines would leave the Corps if assigned to a combat position against their will.  Like they assigned men to all of the time.   So not all women are on board with putting women into combat.

Both sexes mentioned intimate relationships between Marines and feeling obligated to protect female Marines among their top five concerns about the change.

Female Marines also said they worried about being targeted by enemies as POWs, the risk of sexual harassment or assault, and hygiene facilities, according to the survey, which did not give specifics.

One can guess.  Marines in a combat zone are in the field.  They sleep on the ground.  They don’t bathe.  And don’t use bathrooms.  The ground is their toilet. Where there are no toilet stalls with disposal bins for soiled feminine hygiene products.  Or dispensers for new ones.  So all of those things women do when they go off to powder their nose behind closed doors they will be doing in the field.  At a very short distance from their fellow Marines.  Many of whom will be men.

Over the past decade, many male service members already have been fighting alongside women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women who serve in supply units, as clerks and with military police have ended up on the unmarked front lines of modern warfare.

Some active duty women have gotten pregnant.  So there is some fraternization going on.  Also, pilots, air crews, supply personnel and military police typically work out of bases.  Where they have segregated living quarters, toilets and showers.  Things you don’t have when deployed in the field.  So you can’t really say that women are already serving in combat zones as if they are already serving in the infantry.

Yes, women are serving heroically in combat zones.  Some have been wounded.  And some have died.  But they haven’t served in the infantry.  Where they live and fight like animals.  With no propriety about any bodily functions.  Where you may have to poop in your helmet while hunkered down next to someone in a foxhole.  Then risk getting your hands shot off while dumping your helmet outside of your foxhole.  Or you just crap in your foxhole.  For the filth and stench in your foxhole is a whole lot better than what is happening outside of your foxhole.  Unable to go someplace to powder her nose a woman would have to do this next to whoever is in her foxhole with her.  As well as attend to her other needs.  Such as her feminine hygiene needs.  No doubt a concern of some female Marines who were concerned about hygiene facilities.

In a combat zone there is strength in numbers.  And individuals cut off from the main body of troops are easy pickings for the enemy.  So while some ladies would like a modicum of privacy to powder their nose they do so at their own risk.  For the farther she wonders off the greater the chance the enemy will capture her.  Unless a detail of women go with her to provide protection.  Which could weaken the unit.  Or cause an unnecessary rescue mission should the enemy capture them all.  Especially when her fellow Marines worry about what the enemy may do to them.  Which could weaken the unit even more should the rescue mission fail.  Things that just wouldn’t happen if there were only men in combat zones.  Even if some of those men were gay.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT129: “You can safely criticize and fire a white man for doing a poor job without being accused of discrimination.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

It takes Two to Flirt but Only One to Sexually Harass

Today when you hire into a new company chances are they are going to sit you down and make you watch a video on sexual harassment.  Even if you’re not in a supervisory position.  But you will watch a video where some man will be making an uncomfortable workplace for a woman he supervises.  During the Eighties when the military was trying to get more women into the officer corps they taught officer candidates appropriate man-woman touching.  Resting a hand on a near shoulder while looking over her work was okay.  But placing a hand on a far shoulder was sexual harassment.

People like to socialize in the workplace.  And men especially like to socialize with attractive women in the workplace.  Which can create a minefield for an employer.  Even if they have all employees sit through sexual harassment training.   For there is a fine line between flirting and sexual harassment.  Social chatter often goes into subjects inappropriate for the workplace.  An employer may have some midlevel men that begin to spend too much time around the reception desk.  Men responsible for sales or maintaining customer relationships.  Who have become important cogs in the machine.  Even though they may cruise the single bars after work.  But as long as their personal life didn’t interfere with the workplace their personal life was their personal life.  Until, that is, they start flirting with the pretty women in the workplace.

Flirting is a two-way street.  It takes two to flirt.  But it only takes one to sexually harass.  An employer may like to hire a new receptionist who flirts less because it would be easier to hire a new receptionist than hire a new important cog.  This would be the easiest change to prevent flirting from escalating into harassment.  But doing that will require a lot of documentation of disciplinary actions against the receptionist.  Creating an uncomfortable workplace.  And the inevitable lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.  If the employer doesn’t act fast enough this innocent flirting can escalate to an unwelcomed grope in the supply closet.  Then it’s too late.  Now the employer has a lawsuit to deal with.  As well as having to fire the man responsible for the groping.  Causing an even more unpleasant atmosphere in the workplace.  A business disruption.  And an embarrassing task of explaining it to your customers.  At least those affected by the loss of this individual.

Not every Employee may have been the Best Candidate for their Job when the Labor Department encourages Diversity

This is a problem when you mix men and women in the workplace.  Most of the time there are no problems.  People do their jobs and go home to their families.  But problems happen.  Few will make it through their working career without working at a place without some kind of incident.  And it’s rare for a business owner not to have at least one incident in their business life.  Or to know someone who has.  Still, it doesn’t stop them from hiring women.  Not if they’re the best candidate for a position.  And the best candidates typically are those employees that just want to do their jobs and go home to their families.

But not every employee was the best candidate for their job.  Not when the labor department monitors a business’ diversity in hiring. Some businesses are in such a narrow niche market that there aren’t a lot of employees with the requisite skills to choose from.  When the pool of candidates is small chances are the there isn’t a lot of diversity in that pool.  New technologies are sometimes so new that few even know of them.  And the educational system is still playing catch-up.  But anyone ever audited by the government for diversity compliance (typically when federal money is involved) can attest that it is better to be diverse than to be audited.  So you hire people that may not be the best but you hope that with a lot of on-the-job training they will become an important cog in the machine.

Then you have people who just game the system.  Contractors who want to work in big cities have to meet a plethora of requirements just to bid on a project.  Especially when there is federal money involved.  Included in some of these requirements are diversity requirements.  And residency requirements.  They want to award these projects to city-based companies whose workers live in the city.  A noble goal if you’re trying to revitalize the local economy.  But a difficult requirement to meet in some new technologies.  Where they may have only a few companies qualified to do the work to begin with.  But if there is only one who meets the residency requirement this company is going to be at a distinct advantage.  Who can even underbid the project to seal the deal.  And once they have the project they can then bury the city with additional charges and delay the project until they get what they want.

Anyone who Dares to Criticize President Obama and his Policies is Quickly Labeled a Racist

I once sat in some meetings with such a contractor.  He was a smart guy.  He knew the new technology in the project like few others.  Which gave him an advantage in those meetings.  He went on about design mistakes and omissions but it was Greek to everyone at the table.  And nothing ever got done without a fight over additional money.  This guy used the system to delay the project and get the owner to capitulate and pay his additional claims.  Especially when they threatened to replace him with another contractor.  None of which he knew met the residency requirement.  And he said off-the-record to someone that if they did remove him from the project he would sue for discrimination.  Don’t know if that was true but everyone in those meetings acted as if it were.  This guy gave ulcers to everyone on the management team.  But they were always guarded with their comments.  Except for one.  Who let go a verbal barrage in one meeting that stunned everyone.  Saying what everyone wanted to say but didn’t.  Out of fear of being accused of racism.  For criticizing a black man.  So why did this one man speak his mind?  Two reasons.  When he sat in those meetings he was the smartest one in the room.  He didn’t hear Greek.  He just heard a lot of BS.  And he had no problem criticizing a black man.  For he, too, was a black man.

This is why some people like hiring white men.  Because they can criticize them.  And fire them for doing a poor job.  With the least amount of fear that someone will charge them for wrongful dismissal.  Or charge them with discrimination.  Having the ability to easily fire bad (or less than stellar) employees makes business easier.  And less costly.  So an employer has many considerations in the hiring process.  When it comes to older candidates with proven experience it typically is a pure meritocracy.  They hire the best qualified candidate.  For younger inexperienced candidates it may be less a meritocracy than hedging their risk.  Meet any diversity requirements first.  Then maybe hire people that they’ll be able to fire easier if they don’t work out.

It can be risky business criticizing a black man.  Or trying to fire one.  Consider President Obama.  Any objective analysis of his economic policies shows them to be an abject failure.  The official unemployment rate (U-3) hasn’t been below 8% since he’s been president.  The real unemployment rate that counts the underemployed and those who’ve quit looking for work (the U-6 unemployment rate) is just north of 15%.  Which is little better than it was during the Great Depression.  His Keynesian policies are doing no better than the Keynesian policies of Jimmy Carter.  His regulatory zeal has punished business.  It’s even putting the domestic coal and oil industries out of business.  And Obamacare has paralyzed small business with the fear of the unknown.  With no idea what the total cost will be to them they are not hiring anyone unless they absolutely have to.  After an objective economic analysis (leaving the politics out of it) there can be but one conclusion.  President Obama is not good for the American economy.  But anyone who dares criticize him and his policies is quickly labeled a racist.  Which begs the question what would they label those who criticize the president if President Obama was white?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #12: “Feminists will forgive misogyny if the misogynist is a self-proclaimed feminist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2010

MOST WHO CONSIDER themselves feminists aren’t very militant.  And most aren’t probably that hardcore on the ‘equal’ thing.  Men and women are different.  They know this.  And that’s okay.  Many feminists don’t mind when a man holds a door for them.  Or that they have to sit down to pee.  You don’t have to be a man.  You can enjoy your femininity and have a career.  No one says you can’t.  Well, almost no one.

There is a very loud, a very angry and a very militant group of feminists that beg to differ.  It’s not that big of a group.  It seems like it, but that’s just because they get some prime exposure.  In the entertainment industry.  Some media outlets.  And through some rich and powerful friends.

This group believes in absolute equality.  You don’t dare hold a door for them.  Or compliment them on their appearance.  And if you ever think about patting them on the fanny, just realize that you may lose that hand in the process.  And probably your two best friends as well.  Then they’ll say something like “how do you like me now, bitch” to the newly castrated man.

Don’t call them the fairer sex.  Or the weaker sex.  They don’t like it.  They can be crude in their speech for they eschew any preconceived notions of lady-like behavior.    They’ll drop the f-bomb at will and ask a guy how’s it hanging.  They like their behavior rough and coarse.  Just like a man’s.  Like I said, absolute equality.

THESE HARDCORE MILITANT feminists (HMFs) have one overriding concern.  And that is not to let anything interfere with their chosen career or profession.  Anything.  And they’ve had some successes.  Glass ceilings have been shattering and restraints on women’s advancement are falling.  Everywhere.  Everywhere but one.  The uterus.

The HMFs don’t just eschew lady-like behavior, they detest the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system.  The uterus has destroyed more careers than the exclusivity of any old boys club.  Pregnancy.  The scourge of unbridled advancement in the HMF’s world.  Bodily change.  Leaves of absence.  And the possibility that the temporary leave may become a permanent one.  Motherhood.  Children.  The very thought of it sickens them.  And infuriates them.  It just ain’t fair.

They fight this oppression with religious fervor.  And their vehicle is reproductive rights.  Abortion.  It is their holy grail.  They’ve fought long and hard to get it.  And, by god, they intend to keep it.  And they base their political world on it.

At least, that’s what one would surmise based on the historical evidence.

CONDOLEEZA RICE HAS had a remarkable career that set a lot of firsts.  She has an incredible resume and achieved everything on it on her own.  From her PhD in political science to the third most powerful position in the country, Secretary of State, and everything in between, she worked hard and advanced herself.  On pure merit.  Unlike Hillary Clinton whose rise to fame was courtesy of the coattails of a successful man.

You would think that between the two, feminists would hold up Rice as the ideal.  She made it in the man’s world.  Shattered ceilings.  Set records.  Was in fact more successful than most men.  Clinton had to go old school and rely on a successful marriage for political success.  But, of course, it is Clinton they hold up as the ideal.  Not Rice.  Why?

Clinton is a Democrat.  Rice is a Republican.  Clinton is pro-choice.  Rice is less so.  Though very religious, she is kind of libertarian when it comes to abortion.  She’s not pro on-demand abortion.  She believes there should be certain restrictions.  And that’s enough.  Between the two, Clinton supports abortion more.  So the HMFs hold her up as the ideal.

STAND BY YOUR man.  Not exactly a feminist dictate.  If a woman’s husband has a history of extramarital activity, few feminists would say to stand by that man.  They may say something like if he has a problem keeping it in his pants, then just cut it off.  For there are few things as hurtful and humiliating than infidelity.

Bill Clinton has apparently had a problem of keeping it in his pants.  There’ve been many accusations about many women.  The Clintons met all of these with righteous indignation.  His wife attributed them to political attacks from a vast right wing conspiracy.  And she stood by her man.  Even after the infamous blue dress.

Well, it turned out that at least one of the accusations were true.  Now, Bill Clinton was personable, but he was no George Clooney.  Or a Tom Jones.  Women weren’t throwing their panties at him.  He just wasn’t sexy.  So it wasn’t a passionate animal attraction.  No, it wasn’t that.  It was power.  He was the most powerful man in America.  And she was just a 20 something year old intern.  He was 50ish.  He took advantage of her awe of his power.  And stuck his penis in her mouth.  And a cigar tube in her vagina.  But it wasn’t a big deal.  Most men just joked about it.  Thought it was pretty cool.  As long it wasn’t their daughter’s mouth.  Or their daughter’s vagina.

MEN ARE PIGS.  It’s no secret.  So it’s no big shock that a lot of men were okay with a little oral sex in the Oval Office.  They look at the young women in their offices.  They talk about them.  What they would like to do with them.  Some go too far.  Abuse their position of power.  They make inappropriate remarks.  Inappropriate contact.  And then all hell breaks loose.  And rightly so.

Get a job today and you have to sit through compulsory sexual harassment training.  Before you start working.  Employers live in fear of sexual harassment.  If they don’t do enough to prevent it, or if they don’t act fast enough when it happens, the lawyers sue.  The lawyers sue even when they do.  It’s a minefield.  One misstep along the way and BOOM.  Lawsuit.  We will not tolerate any abuse of power.  Unless, of course, you’re president of the United States.

WHAT IS MISOGYNY?  A hatred of women.  Objectifying them for pleasure.  The attitude that women are good for only one thing.  Sex.  A misogynist may ‘love’ being with women, but he doesn’t necessarily want to be with them.  Talk to them.  Or see them still there the following morning.  And he may leave cab fare out so they won’t be there later that evening after he’s ‘done’ with them.  Think of Charlie Harper from the television show Two and a Half Men.

A man that habitually cheats on his wife is a misogynist.  He doesn’t respect his wife.  Or the women he’s fooling around with.  He’s just having a good time.  Using them.  To fulfill some animal desire.  Thinking with the little head.  Always.

JFK was fooling around.  Teddy, too.  Two women died as a result.  Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.  Did she want more than JFK was willing to give?  Did she kill herself because of this?  We’ll never know.  All that we know is that she had sex with JFK.  And that she was depressed.

Ted Kennedy was probably going to have sex with Mary Jo Kopechne when he accidentally drove off that bridge.  His pregnant wife was home in bed at the time.  Kennedy panicked and left Kopechne to die.  This may have dashed his presidential ambitions, but he remained in the Senate for another 40 years or so.  A stalwart liberal.  The HMFs stood by him.  And JFK (posthumously, of course).  Teddy was pro-choice.  And a Catholic.  Talk about a coup for feminism.  They loved this man.  And never abandoned him.  I mean, Catholicism is about as anti-abortion as you can get.  In another era, the church would have excommunicated Teddy for such blasphemy.

The feminists never abandoned Clinton, either.  Bill or Hillary.  Why?  They’re pro-choice.  And with them in power, the HMFs know abortion will stay a choice.  So they will forgive the misogyny.  It’s like a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  In their world, he just didn’t do anything that bad.  Unlike someone else.

SAY THE NAME and the invectives fly.  Sarah Palin.  My, how the Left hates her.  And the HMFs.  Here’s another successful career woman, too.  She earned everything herself.  Didn’t marry into anything.  Again, a feminist ideal they could hold up for all young girls to emulate.  But they hate her.  Why?

They hate Sarah Palin because she’s that 1950s mom AND a successful career woman.  That just ain’t supposed to happen.  Remember, having babies is the scourge of career advancement.  Add to that the fact that she didn’t abort her last pregnancy after already having had 4 children.  Compound that with the fact that she didn’t change her mind about abortion after finding out her last baby would be born with Down Syndrome. 

Palin makes a mockery of the HMFs version of feminism.  Babies destroy careers.  Ergo, to succeed in a career, you can’t have babies.  But, being in a modern, liberated age, accidents happen.  And no one should punish a career woman for doing anything more than a man did.  She should be able to keep her career.  And abortion lets her.  That’s the model.  And then along comes Palin and blows that model all to hell.

THERE ARE MANY more examples.  All with a common theme.  Misogyny is okay as long as you are a feminist.  You can do pretty much whatever you want.  They won’t attack you.  They will, though, if you are pro-life.  Even if you only ‘lean’ pro-life.  Because if you take away abortion, the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system will go on unchecked.  And absolute equality will be but a fleeting memory.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,