She talks about verbal abuse of women. Anyone recall her defending Palin last week?
I know how much trouble this is going to get me into. So I’m still thinking about it, weighing my words.
But the premise I’m toying with is that women will be the end of the United States and western civilization.
I’ll give you one big thing to think about. Many civilizations, dating back thousands of years, have established conditions that could keep women safe from rape and other kinds of violence caused by superior male strength, including serving in combat. (Sexist barbarians, I know.) But none of them put women in charge until the 20th century. Yes, I know Elizabeth I, Tzu Hsi, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher were leaders of nations. They were the exceptions. There are always exceptions, or I wouldn’t be married at this point in my dotage.
Why didn’t they want women in charge?
Amazing to me that Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary to President Clinton, could write a book arguing that women should be in charge of everything now. Why? Because women ARE in charge of everything now and everything sucks. (Don’t even try to tell me Obama’s in charge because Michelle would set you right in a second.) Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of ObamaCare, and she can’t begin to figure out what her responsibility might be. Janet Napolitano is in charge of Homeland Security, and she has no idea what to say about the NSA rampaging through our private communications. Who was in charge at the IRS when persons and groups were targeted because of their allegiance to the Constitution? Her name was Lois Lerner. Who was Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked for nine hours and our foreign service personnel were slaughtered with no attempt to rescue them? Hillary Clinton. Who was the Speaker of the House when the ObamaCare nightmare got jammed through congress on purely technical manipulation of the rules? Nancy Pelosi. Who was the presidential adviser who undertook the secret negotiations that will now give Iran nuclear weapons? Valerie Jarrett. Or VaJ as her intimates call her.
And who, besides me, in the entire MSM/Internet universe has put this list before you in these terms? No one. Because men have become women too.
Why do they talk about a nanny state? Because women want to be in charge of everything, down to the shirts and underpants you wear. They know better because they know better and don’t stop talking long enough to learn different. The nonstop all-knowing mouth is what’s most important. Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t need boobs or a uterus to be everybody’s mommy. He has a virtual ‘knitting vagina,’ which spins the myth of fem superiority into nooses designed to hang everyone.
Women are somehow kinder, fairer, smarter, wiser, more cooperative, more competent? Give me a break. For the most part, they’re the same rigid, backbiting, dangerous, fanatically emotional time bombs they always were. Why nobody was ever dumb enough to put them in charge. Until we did.
But think…
Have women’s lives really improved since they got the vote in 1920? More importantly, have the lives of our citizenry as a whole improved since women got the vote? Maybe there’s more money because of all those working moms, but even the leftists don’t believe more money equals happiness. (Only power matters to them.) There are more abortions, more divorces, more broken homes, more struggling single mothers, more bastard, fatherless children who fall into lives of drugs, crime, and failure. And more middle class strippers, lap dancers, hookers, Craigslist escorts, and amateur webcam porn performers than our grandparents could ever have imagined. Wouldn’t the suffragettes be proud?
Okay. I’ll leave you to think about it on your own. I’ll also leave you to think about the moral cesspool we’ve plummeted into since the day almost a hundred years ago when women got the vote. The idea that women are somehow more moral is also a joke. Men commit the most violent crime? Imagine a million babies a year flushed down toilets… And on top of it, they want all of us to pay for it and admire them for their twerking.
Progressives call this progress. Don’t they?
Back at you later.
Well, that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
But can you actually disagree?
As a woman who has been in management in highly technical fields for more than 30 years, I always hated the token females in charge. I’ve seen a number of them in technical leadership roles and they do no credit to women. And how many do we see in Human Resources and Finance departments, filling quotas. All the intelligent working women I know feel the same way. We want the good ones promoted, but for whatever reason that doesn’t seem to happen. Too pushy I suppose.
And even those women in directorships are gone and now we look at the back of all white males at the head table.
So I believe what we have in the Obama administration are female eunuchs, not necessarily representative of the real woman power many of us would like to see. And there’s always Sarah Palin, the real rebel of this century.
Sarah Palin is the woman you would promote as a great female role model? Sex before marriage with a basketball star? Twerking her way to the top of the post.
Anyway, what you need are women who aspire to be like Madame de Stael. But there are no women today who can reach such great heights. Instead you have a bunch of models who prattle on about, well, whatever that is showing up in the teleprompter.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/madame_de_stael.html
Seriously Helk, how is Madame de Stael relevant to the 21st Century? Do we have a final count of all her various lovers while traipsing around the continent?
“Protected by her husband’s diplomatic status, she was in no danger in Paris until 1793, when she retreated to Coppet, Switz., the family residence near Geneva. It was here that she gained fame by establishing a meeting place for some of the leading intellectuals of western Europe. Since 1789 she had been the mistress of Louis de Narbonne, one of Louis XVI’s last ministers. He took refuge in England in 1792, where she joined him in 1793. She stayed at Juniper Hall, near Mickleham in Surrey, a mansion that had been rented since 1792 by French émigrés. There she met Fanny Burney (later Mme d’Arblay), but their friendship was cut short because Mme de Staël’s politics and morals were considered undesirable by good society in England.”
I neither know nor care what Sarah Palin did while she was single, but she is a real female political voice speaking freely and boldly in the face of some of the most atrocious insults from all the MSM.
From what I’ve seen in my own life and on the national stage, a few women are capable of greatness, fewer succeed, and most are willing to take the easiest road. They definitely do not have a stronger moral sense. Of the handful with powerful positions in my workplace, two are excellent, one is downright incompetent, one is full of excuses. Not terribly different from the men in similar positions, but they stay in their jobs whether they do well or not.
My question on your point: are they worse *per capita*? There are fewer of them, though I imagine we’ll reach parity at some point, and while the standouts that you mention are truly terrible, is it just a numbers game? Or is there something particularly bad about them, above and beyond the men?
I guess I answered my own question above. It’s not that they’re worse, it’s that their screwups are quicker to be excused, dismissed, or used as victimization points.
But you haven’t answered MY question. Why has no one put them in charge before this?