Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Who's Afraid Now?...
...And who's more comfortable with powerful women?LISTEN UP. I want to clear up one possible misconception. My early support for Sarah Palin was never based on the notion that she would appeal principally to women voters. I always thought of her as a choice that would energize men. As funny as LocoPunk's post was as a comment on the recent 'feeding frenzy,' he had one point coldly and brutally right:
She must be compelled to quit and go meekly home to the icy frontier wastes that spawned her -- and leave governance to the political class of feminized men and masculinized women who have no breasts (at least not lactating ones) and no desire to produce more than one androgynous, green, and vegan child as late in life as possible, at the end of a long line of precautionary abortions. That's modern womanhood. Isn't it?
We're being given an opportunity here to see into a great cultural divide that has been mischaracterized for close to half a century. It is left wing feminists who have been given carte blanche to define for the rest of us what a "powerful woman" is. But the definition they have promulgated and embedded into the public consciousness is, in fact, the precise opposite of powerful. It is one that views the entire history of women in terms of oppression. Thus, we are supposed to accept continual resentment, hostility, and the vengeful accumulation of rights that effectively bestow legal superiority on women as evidence of their empowerment, which always somehow requires government intervention, special privileges and dispensations, and in one critical area -- abortion -- an exclusive legal right that cannot be justified in terms of any religion, morality, or legal system based on principles of equality.
We are expected to believe that it is the powerful women who are so ambivalent about their own sexuality that they are offended by the sexual attentions of men, who seek to deprive men of explicitly anonymous sources of sexual stimulation, and who desire to castrate (at least figuratively and sometimes literally) men who dare to notice the natural sexual attractiveness of the female body. We are required to accept that the cultural emancipation of women must also somehow result in the dilution of masculinity, even in young boys and especially in adult men. We are to be docilely obedient in permitting even our own college-age sons to be programmed in seminars and other propaganda instruments to believe they are genetically flawed, actually a species-level mistake, in their normal response to the females of their kind.
These are not the acts of powerful people. These are the acts of frightened inferiors who employ the powers of the state and other cultural institutions to hand them a structural advantage in areas where they know they can't compete on equal terms. Liberal feminists are not strong or independent or powerful. They are simply clever authoritarians who have connived to brainwash a generation or two of gullible dupes into accepting an invented right to the claim of gender superiority.
The shame of men is that so many of them have swallowed all this bilge without fighting back or given it lip service without articulating all the obvious rebuttals.
That's why it is men who are responding most dramatically to Sarah Palin. She is a powerful woman, and the most masculine of men are automatically drawn to genuinely powerful women. Every wolf pack is run by an alpha male and an alpha female. It's hard-wired. If the feminist delusions about female oppression were true, we would never have heard of Cleopatra, who was not so much beautiful as intelligent, ambitious, and passionate enough to earn partnership with both Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. Does anyone think Napoleon raced home to Josephine because she had mopped the floors and cooked him a nice meatloaf? Did men swear allegiance and give their lives for Elizabeth I of England because she convinced them it was her turn to be a monarch?
Do we imagine that the conspiratorially murderous patriarchy of Islam is really something western men yearn for, that they don't see it as one of the most malignantly evil of the reasons for a thousand years of muslim backwardness and failure? Really?
The minions of the left are reacting with near-psychotic hysteria to the candidacy of Sarah Palin because she is the living refutation of a lie that has spayed their women and neutered their men. They do not dare contemplate the implications of a woman who has come from nowhere, with no special privileges, to outperform men in a land of men while retaining all the most deeply feminine attributes of her sex -- motherhood, marital longevity, beauty, and charm. She has no need to make herself more girly by ostentatiously refusing to learn the rules of football or which end of a rifle the bullet comes out of. She feels no need to be a foul-mouthed insurgent in the continuing war against men. Like all powerful women, she likes men enough to compete with them in their most cherished pursuits -- and feels no need to lose just because letting men win offers that low, sneaky, catty feeling of female superiority.
Has it occurred to any of the superior liberals that the pre-teen boys who participate in "junior bull riding" and the young men who compete in X-Games events involving motorcycles executing 360-degree flips have mothers? Who are those mothers? They love their sons, but they also value the importance of letting them be men, just as soldiers are men and not the infants of impotent female fantasies. Are such mothers a threat to the hypothetical nanny-state matriarchy being plotted by the sexless New Age feminists of our self-indulgent era? Absolutely. They are the worst of all possible threats. Because they can chew through a feminist in four seconds flat.
That's the reason so many women in the early polling say she can't be ready to be president. They'd rather be ruled by another damn dumb male than a woman who makes them feel inadequate. (They find Hillary's pantsuits as funny as the men do, but more significant; they can like her because she could never attract another man....) But Palin is scary. She can compete on equal terms with men in politics and hunting and fishing, and she can still steal your man. Damn. No wonder Sally Quinn and Campbell Brown think she should be exiled to St. Helena, Alaska, and spend the rest of her years looking after her children.
But a lot of the men -- conservative, Republican, Independent, and even Democrat -- know that she's hot in the best possible way. You could talk to her about something other than the kids and dinner. You could admire her. You could even work for her and, if the opportunity arises, follow her. Because she's something most men haven't seen for much of their lifetimes -- the alpha bitch in the pack.
Which means, for the rest of you (i.e., the lefty eunuchs), don't be expecting her to run whimpering into the weeds. Ain't gonna happen. Far more likely that she'll tear your throat out. What Boadicea would do.
But you knew that already, Even if you didn't.
Meanwhile, the powerful women -- dangerously silent in their calculating rage -- are massing in the dark, a Hillary-free pack of their own whose fury could also wreak unimaginable havoc. Especially if any man contemplates throwing Sarah Palin to the wolves. The consequences of that would not be pretty. Think snarling, growling, flashing teeth, biting, and then the yipping of the beaten betas.
You've been warned. All of you.
ADDENDUM. Are the libs playing with fire? Yes. It can and will burn them. Real life isn't what the alienated losers of DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground live. It's what ordinary Americans live. What do Obama and Michelle know about that? Grrrr.
UPDATE. The pack is forming. (Buy your T-shirts here.) Incidentally, Ace [scroll] is, as usual, wrong. Palin doesn't need to give a policy wonk speech, nor should she. She needs to make it clear she is a Republican, a conservative, an executive who has made decisions in real time, a hard worker, a balls-to-the-wall patriot on national security, a never-say-die wingman for John McCain, and, oh yes, a woman with no fear of cosseted DC blowhards. The audience can fill in the rest of it. She doesn't need to pretend she has a masters in Tedious Public Policy Minutiae from the Kennedy School at Harvard. In fact, that's the worst thing she could do. Although I do think she would score points if she pronounced the word 'nuclear' correctly. But that's just me.
AN OBLIQUITY. Apropos of the "O." You'll get this or you won't. Not my problem. A new computer game called Portal, described here. Our future? That's the implication at least. Here's the theme song. Note the "O" on the title screen. We here at InstaPunk just love the future. Only maybe not other peoples' idea of it so much as our own. (h/t Chain Gang.)