So, the people running the Dems’ presidential campaign have chosen Kamala Harris to be Creepy Uncle Joe Biden’s running mate and Vice Presidential candidate. This makes Harris the singularly most visible and overt token of these degenerate, degrading, and disgusting “Anti-Racism” times.
Her nomination isn’t even Affirmative Action because there was never any thought to “all else being equal.” No! The Dems explicitly said that Race and Gender were hard and fast prerequisites for the being given the nomination.
So, Kamala Harris is just their Token Negro and Token Woman and nothing else or more than that. And that is current state of thought and belief among those sorts most likely to vote Democrat in the upcoming 2020 elections.
With Biden make gender and race the paired primary “qualifications” for being his 2020 running mate, the Lamestream Media’s charting the duskiness of potential picks is actually less bias than just following along with the Gaffemaster’s own promise.
But hey! It’s not as if Biden couldn’t use a Magic Negress to keep him grounded and under control, and a strong, wise “mammy” might just be the best choice – though the Quaker Oats Company and their parent company, PepsiCo would probably disagree.
In any event and no matter which one his handlers pick for him, Biden’s VP choice in the 2020 elections will be the perfect and most perfectly visible token of what the Democrat party is now.
At least we know Biden won’t pick Hillary as his running mate. He may be a bit crazy and more than a little senile, but he does want to survive his possible term as POTUS without “suiciding” or have “an odd accident.” 😉
One of the sad facts of this “woke” world is that Misogyny is like Racism; certain sorts, for their own purposes, “Humpty Dumpty” the term. I.e., those sorts will and do ignore any normative, objective definition of “Misogyny” in favor of their own agenda-driven interpretation of it. Anything is else is rejected.
You see, in the minds of feminists, you don’t have to hate or dislike women to be a misogynist.
All it takes for these sorts to label you as a misogynist is for you to fail to fully agree with whatever the current “point” is that any feminist is trying to make at that moment. It doesn’t even take any act – by word, deed, or facial expression/body language – to be labeled as such. It only takes not making it perfectly clear that you wholeheartedly and with guilt and shame in your heart agree with the point being made.
My initial question was “Is misogyny simply hatred toward women?” The answer is a loud and clear “no.” A misogynist is not simply a person who hates women, it’s a person who does, or would, hate women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions.
And yes, this womyn isn’t really a crackpot. She’s a regular contributor to Psychology Today, which is generally considered a respectable professional outlet. Hence, since she’s so published, one can’t claim that hers is an outlier position at all. This is the mainstream feminist position.
And, of course, it’s Dr. Broggard’s sort who are the sole arbiters of what hating women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions looks like. Indeed, they only accept their own definitions for: hate, power, status, standing up for themselves, and making their own decisions.
As in all such “Social Justice” matters, Humpty Dumpty reigns supreme.
And They Do Say It’s All Men
Yes, You can forget any idea of claiming to any of this sort that you’re not one of the minority of men who behaves badly towards women. Just being a man is enough to taint you with misogyny. You’re only “out” is to prove to them that you’re ashamed of yourself, your gender, and society; agree with all their points; and are taking concrete steps to further womyn’s success at the cost of your own and other men’s.
Manne tosses out the common thinking that misogyny is equivalent to despising all women, and instead offers that itâ€™s a way to keep women in their place. Misogyny, she writes, is â€œthe system that operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce womenâ€™s subordination and to uphold male dominance.â€ Like a shock collar used to keep dogs behind an invisible fence, misogyny, she argues, aims to keep womenâ€”those who are well trained as well as those who are unrulyâ€”in line. The power of Manneâ€™s definition comes from its ability to bring together various behaviors and events under one umbrella.
Yes, it’s another call to action to end the “Patriarchy.” So, of course, #YesAllMen are guilty of being complicit in it just by the very fact that they’re men. In their minds, all men were born and raised as misogynists, meaning that all men are complicit but no man can be innocent.
Some evidence of this from Everyday Feminism:
Dear Well-Meaning Men Who Believe Themselves to Be Safe, Thereby Legitimizing the â€œNot All Menâ€ Argument,
Letâ€™s start here, even though this should go without saying: We donâ€™t think that all men are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of men arenâ€™t. There are men that we love very much â€“ men around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; men who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every man has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of men that we trust. We know what you mean by â€œnot all menâ€ â€“ because, on a basic level, we agree with you.
But the socialization of men is such that even a good man â€“ a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man â€“ has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.
And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we donâ€™t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.
So when you enter a space â€“ any space â€“ as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
Of course, in most cases, itâ€™s not a conscious thing. We donâ€™t think that most men move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We donâ€™t believe The Patriarchy™ to be a boardroom full of men posing the question â€œHow can we fuck over gender minorities today?â€ You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.
But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe â€“ what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism â€“ is the normalized violating behaviors that theyâ€™ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.
Make no mistake: When you use the phrase â€œnot all menâ€ â€“ or otherwise buy into the myth of it â€“ youâ€™re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of â€œmasculinityâ€ without consequence, whether or not thatâ€™s your intention.
In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement â€“ and that of other men. But you canâ€™t do that if youâ€™re stuck in the space of believing that â€œnot all menâ€ is a valid argument.
So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that youâ€™re missing when you claim â€œnot all menâ€ as a way to eschew responsibility for patriarchal oppression.
It’s really just an example of how exactly misogyny is like racism. It’s a nebulous thing, defined solely by those who feel that they’re victims of it or who are those people’s “allies,” and is set up specifically and deliberately as a inherent, endemic, and profound systemic problem that labels huge groups of individuals as being complicit while allow none to escape it taint.
Men don’t even have to do anything to be treated as oppressors. We always carry with us the “threat of harm.”
Oh yeah! And don’t – as I been doing the whole post-issue forth any dissent whatsoever from the feminists’ doctrine and dogma. As the 1st Extrapolation (moving it out of internet comments) of Lewis’ Law states: comments about feminism justify feminism.
Oh yes! I do so hope that the Jackasses of the Left, especially the Feminazi cunts, have the chutzpah to actually cue up and launch into one of their screeds on “White Privilege” and “Toxic Masculinity” when the three front-runners for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination are: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke – all well-to-do White men and all with a history of “inappropriate” behavior towards women.
But we all know that they will cue up that screed and rant it to world and uncaring heavens, don’t we? After all, “it’s not the same thing” in their minds any more than Clinton, Franken, or Ellison are the same thing – again, in their minds.
Now, it’s true that we’ve only oneÂ reported case so far of a feminist aborting their baby because it was a boy and that case is unconfirmed. Yet, the important part of that is “reported.” We’ve no real idea how many feminists have killed off their own unborn children because they were going to have a son and they believe all men are sexual predators.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be that surprised if this were far more common than we’ve been given evidence of.Â Given the reasoning of Feminists, it even makes a sick sort of sense that they’d prefer to kill their unborn sons – future predators – in an effort to end the “Patriarchy.”
And it’s not as if sex-selection wasn’t a disturbingly common reason for abortion in the first place, at least outside the Civilized World.Â It’s certainly not unreasonable or illogical to posit that Feminists, who do not value men, would act in similar, if converse, manner to those cultures who do not value women. There’s little behavioral difference, after all, between misogyny and misandry.
Reflections From A Murky Pond is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.