How can men help girls see her and be her?

Back in June of 2016 The Association of National Advertisers and its Alliance for Family Entertainment launched an initiative titled #SeeHer, to boost girls’ self esteem by making sure women are portrayed correctly in commercials.  As AdAge explains:

The Association of National Advertisers and its Alliance for Family Entertainment are out to eliminate bias against women from advertising and media, launching #SeeHer in an effort backed by the White House and tracked by ongoing consumer surveys.

…The White House is particularly concerned about under-representation of women in the fields of science, technology, engineering and medicine, or STEM, which it believes is tied to how women are portrayed in media, said AFE Chairman and former Walmart CMO Stephen Quinn.

Viacom created its own commercial dedicated to the topic, titled It isn’t rocket science.  As is noted in the commercial’s title, the point is that women don’t actually have to do STEM for young girls to see women doing STEM.  Offering girls pretend examples is just as good, so long as they see women doing the activity in question:

A female scientist at The Pentagon is working frantically to fix an emergency computer. Once she figures out the problem, she races to let the president know that it wasn’t an attack, but rather a mainframe failure, and saves the day just in time. The scene flashes back to a young girl learning about computers at school, seemingly imagining the previous situation as her future. Viacom says that portraying a strong, intelligent female character isn’t rocket science. If a young girl sees her, she can be her.

This feminists preference for make believe over real achievement is nothing new.  As soon as Charles Lindbergh completed his historic solo transatlantic flight in May of 1927, the race was on to find a woman whom girls could look up to as a female version of Lindbergh.  After multiple failed attempts, finally a woman was found who could cut her hair, dress up like a man, and allow men to fly her across the Atlantic!  On June 17 1928, Lady Lindy was born when Wilmer Stultz and Louis Gordon successfully transported Amelia Earhart across the Atlantic via airplane.

Ninety years have passed, but the objective hasn’t changed:

How can we show girls pretend examples of women’s achievement?

However with new times come new methods.  In the past women had to cut their hair and dress like men to accomplish this goal.  Today however we aren’t confined to the old ways.  Now men can grow out their hair and dress as women to do the same thing.

 

H/T Oscar.

Advertisements
Posted in Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh, Commercials, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 40 Comments

The day chivalry killed chivalry.

Back in January of 2016, Mr. Gabe Jones of Those Catholic Men declared in Women Don’t Deserve Combat that chivalry died on Dec 3, 2015:

December 3, 2015 ought to be remembered as the date that any remaining vestiges of our country’s collective sense of chivalry died a tragic death. It was on this day that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced his decision to require combat positions in every branch of the United States military – including the Marine Corps – be opened to women. Despite being one of the most significant news items in recent memory, if you did not pay close attention to the world affairs during the past few weeks the announcement may have been lost in the commotion of the other issues in the news, such as the presidential campaign, ISIS, refugees and immigration, not to mention gun and racial issues. One more thump in the constant drumbeat of political correctness can easily be overlooked.

The great irony is that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter killed chivalry by holding the door open for women!  Like Sir Gawain, Sec. Def. Carter acted chivalrously and decided to let women decide for themselves.  Moreover, the only chivalrous response to women demanding to be allowed into combat is the only chivalrous response to anything a woman asks*.  As Laura Ashe explains in Love and chivalry in the Middle Ages (emphasis mine):

Malory’s ideal of chivalry has love at its heart: ‘thy quarrel must come of thy lady’, he says, ‘and such love I call virtuous love’. Each knight is to fight for the sake of his lady; with his victories he earns her love, and defends her honour. He is absolutely loyal to her and will follow her every command, whatever happens – whether she sends him on an impossible quest, banishes him from her company, or stands accused of some terrible crime, in desperate need of his help.

Sec. Def. Carter responded to women demanding entry into combat with a chivalrous Yes, M’lady!  It would have been unchivalrous to say no, as Jones himself clearly understands from the very title of his piece.  Jones makes it a point to clarify that he would never “denounce” women serving in the military in any capacity, as he is in awe of their gallant knightly virtues:

But first, a clarification is necessary. Nothing written here is intended to detract from the courage and patriotism of the women who have already served, are serving, and will serve in combat roles. Nor should what follows be taken as a denunciation of women serving in the military in any capacity. We owe these women a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. Anyone – male or female – who has volunteered to serve our country deserves our respect and admiration. That being said, we can and should question the philosophy of allowing women into combat and whether or not it’s a good idea.

Just like Sec. Def. Carter, Jones can’t bring himself to say no to feminist demands.  All he can do is protest that women are too strong and virtuous to go into combat.  He closes the piece with a call to pedestalize women, including the very feminists who are demanding to serve in combat.  Like Doug Phillips and the men of the CBMW, Jones pretends that feminists aren’t really demanding to go into combat, but that mysterious unseen cowardly men must be somehow forcing ladylike women to usurp the roles of men (emphasis mine):

War is brutal. The front lines of combat are a disgusting, abhorrent, crude, and destructive place. This may sound very old fashioned or even chauvinistic to a non-Catholic, but it’s not. It’s chivalrous because the simple fact is that combat is no place for women. They deserve so much better. As men, we should protect and uphold the dignity of women, and one very important way we can do that is to raise our daughters to be strong, virtuous, and holy, with Mary as their ultimate role model. Women deserve to be placed on a pedestal, not shoved in a foxhole.

See Also: 

*There is one exception in the rules of courtly love. A lover who is ordered by his lady to stop loving her must not and should not assent.

Posted in Chivalry, Courtly Love, Kickass Conservative Gals, Military, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 34 Comments

Ugly feminists high on rage.

Anonymous Reader just linked to a new piece at the Washington Post that opens with:

A flood of rage is rushing through women’s brains. Why can’t men organize to change themselves?

The author brags about going on an extended hysterical tirade against her husband, describing wave after wave of uncontrollable rage.  She closes the piece with a warning.  Men had better do what she wants, or there will be hell to pay:

Pay attention people: If we do not raise boys to walk humbly and care deeply, if we do not demand that men do more than just listen, we will all drown in the flood [of women’s rage]. And there is no patriarchal Noah to save us.

Earlier today gdgm+ linked to a different piece from earlier this year where a feminist warned that women’s rage was tearing apart liberal men’s marriages:

…a phrase I’ve heard most frequently by women who have found themselves rightly riled, women who have perhaps never before—until recently—cited themselves as feminists report the fury, the frustration, the foundational shift as it’s occurring in the men they love so fiercely and the relationships that hold them as a consequence to the male gaze gazing now at their woman, riled.

This isn’t a coincidence.  Feminists in the media are high on rage right now.  It has given them power, and they want more.  The Nation has a new piece out today on The Politics of Women’s Anger.  NBC News has a video out titled It’s time for women to embrace their rage.   Not to be outdone, The Atlantic has it’s own video out titled The Seismic Power of Women’s Rage:

In America today, women are angry. But this isn’t a modern phenomenon, argues the author Rebecca Traister. In her new book, Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger, Traister details how female rage has long been the country’s political fuel.

I think the feminists are (in the near term) overplaying their hand here, but it is easy to understand how they got there.  Men’s desire to appease women’s anger and complaining has been an enormous source of power for decades (and will continue to be moving forward).  Recently, turning up the rage turned up the power.  But there is an ugliness threshold where most men will check out and large numbers of women will be repelled.  We are at or near that threshold.  This isn’t the kind of anger that makes chivalrous men salivate in anticipation of out groveling the other men in the room.  This is the kind of anger that makes the women complaining look flat out crazy, hysterical.

But feminists shouldn’t worry.  My guess is this won’t do much (if any) lasting harm to the movement.  In the meantime, brace yourself for a series of articles and videos about the rage that is being spawned by the fact that women’s rage isn’t working like it should.

Posted in #MeToo, Aging Feminists, The Atlantic, Ugly Feminists, Washington Post | 122 Comments

Feminists resent his chivalry even as he chivalrously supports feminism.

Country star Chris Janson has a song climbing the charts titled Drunk Girl, teaching that the difference between a man and a boy is that real men seek out sloppy drunk women in bars so they can take them safely into their beds:

Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter your number by her phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home

Kathryn Schulz at The New Yorker wrote about the song in The Kavanaugh Hearing, Chris Janson’s “Drunk Girl,” and Country Music’s #MeToo Misfire.  Schulz notes that Janson is promoting a message of feminist empowerment:

To its credit, the song gets one thing mostly right, which is the woman at the heart of it. She is an uncomfortable figure, but a real enough one, and Janson does her the rare courtesy of not chastising her for drinking. On the contrary, he makes it the man’s responsibility to behave appropriately…

…he implicitly endorses the Drunk Girl’s right to [drink with impunity] without devastating consequences.

But despite the fact that the song promotes feminist thought, the song is not intended as a feminist song.  It is a chivalrous song.  Not surprisingly, Schulz deeply resents the idea that men protecting women is noble.  Hilariously, she can’t even bring herself to admit the issue:

A month ago, when I first heard “Drunk Girl,” I was struck by the contrast between its good intentions and its dazzling cluelessness. Much as the man in the song doesn’t deserve credit for not raping a woman, the man who sings it doesn’t deserve credit for his allegedly bold stand against rape. Now, though, because “Drunk Girl” criticizes exactly the kinds of acts that Kavanaugh stands accused of committing, it has become abruptly, improbably pointed. By articulating the unbelievably low bar to which men are held, it accidentally condemns the specific man who, according to multiple credible allegations, fails to pass even that miserable standard.

Schulz is pretending that the only two choices men have are between taking drunk girls home to have sex with them, and taking drunk girls home to protect them.  But the inclination of the vast majority of men is to do neither.  Most men understand that taking a drunk woman home invites being seen as a predator either way.  Janson isn’t trying to get rapists to stop raping;  he is trying to convince good men that they should take drunk women home as an act of chivalry, so that the drunk woman doesn’t wind up having sex she might later regret.  Janson also wants men to leave a note with their name and number, so the woman can wake up the next morning and express what he foolishly expects will be her gratitude:

Took a drunk girl home
In the sober light of dawn
She left you a message she thanked you on the phone
Cause you picked up her life she threw on the floor
You left the hall lights on walked out and locked the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home

But Schulz can’t stand the idea of feeling grateful to Janson and his followers for their chivalry.  She loves that the song tells men they have the obligation to facilitate feminist debauchery, to make sure it is safe and pleasurable.  But the cost of simple gratitude is too much for her to bear.  Luckily for her and feminists everywhere, chivalrous men are eager to facilitate feminism whether feminists are thankful or not.  When clueless men follow the lesson of the song and find they trigger not gratitude but resentment* supporters of chivalry will respond that this only shows that we need even more chivalry, with even higher risks to well meaning men.  In fact, the less thankful feminists are, the more eager chivalrous men will be to facilitate feminism.  Everybody wins.  Well, almost everybody.

*Ranging from being called a creep to being charged and convicted of rape.  This is made worse because only the most socially clueless (creepy) men would actually take the message of the song seriously enough to act it out, and a jury of chivalrous men and feminist women will be eager to convict any man who is accused of harming a woman.

Posted in #MeToo, Chivalry, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 95 Comments

Angry with God, envious of men.

One of the ideas feminists have been floating is a curfew for men.  Most recently this made the news as a viral series of tweets.  From This is What Women Would Do if There Were No Men On The Streets Post 9 PM:

Don’t go out late at night. Don’t dress in short clothes. Don’t walk down deserted roads. Don’t go into dark corners…

No, these are not rules for an entry into some prison. If you are a woman, you probably have been taught all of these as a child.

We are told that outside spaces are unsafe. That going out late at night is a risk. That you cannot stroll down at 2 A.M at night without fearing for your life. As much as you choose to, or not choose to believe in these, society conditions you to these factors. It becomes so normalized that you don’t think about why it is a problem.

This feminist idea goes back many years.  Back in 2014 Vice.com ran an article titled Would a Curfew for Men Be Good for Society?  The Vice article referenced a Colombian city that was “experimenting” with the idea:

Bars and clubs are being encouraged to host women-only events, while men who have to be out and about in the evening will need to carry a safe-conduct permit issued by the mayor’s office, explaining why they are out during the curfew.

But according to Vice, the idea itself dates back at least to the early 1970s:

Back in the early 70s, Golda Meir, the then prime minister of Israel, was faced with a government cabinet full of men discussing how best to curb a wave of violent rapes. The idea of banning women from the streets after dark was floated. Meir made a counteroffer.

“Men are attacking women,” she said. “Not the other way around. If there is going to be a curfew, let the men be locked up, not the women.”

One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a curfew for men is not about stopping crime or protecting women.  This is about feminist envy of men.  In order to protect women, such a scheme would not only have to keep good law abiding men off the streets, it would have to keep murderers, rapists, etc. off the streets as well.  The feminists themselves understand that such a law would only keep the good men off the streets, and they are fine with that.  As the promoter of the Colombian scheme acknowledged in the Vice article, such a rule would depend upon the goodwill of men:

Any fines handed out are likely to be symbolic, however. The success of the scheme will rest on whether men choose to go along with the campaign. As Beltrán conceded, “We can only hope men accept the challenge [to stay at home],” which is far from a certainty.

But why would feminists want a rule to keep good men at home at night in response to crimes committed by bad men?  Not only would this not make women safer, but removing good men would make women even more vulnerable to the small number of bad ones.  The answer is that this isn’t about crime or safety, but envy.  This is about feminists envying good men, and wanting to punish them for having something they covet.

This isn’t about feminists being angry with rapists and murderers, this is about them resenting the good men who unhesitatingly go out of their way to keep women safe.  The proposal is the response to the feminist question:

Why do men get to protect women?  Why isn’t it the other way around?

In a satirical piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this July, Melinda Houston captured this envy perfectly.  After acknowledging that truly bad men would not be deterred by the curfew, she described the real benefit of the law;  good men would be afraid and need to turn to women for protection:

But how about when I want to, say, go out and have dinner or a few drinks with male friends? Well, right now, at the conclusion of an evening’s festivities one or more of my male companions see me safely into a taxi. But under the new regime any men out after dark would have to be accompanied by a responsible female, and escorted in person to appropriate transport. It’s completely do-able. I can attest to it. I’ve been doing it for decades.

Same rules for any chap who works nights.

And if you can’t afford a taxi or an Uber or arrange for a friend to collect you? Well, gentlemen, you’d have to take your chances, just as the ladies currently do.

This is of course the same impulse driving the insistence of forcing women into every unit in the military, no matter the cost.  Rape and murder they can tolerate, but feeling gratitude is absolutely unbearable.

Posted in Envy, Ugly Feminists | 98 Comments