Streetwise Professor

October 8, 2018

The Malignancy of Gender Identity Politics

Filed under: Politics — cpirrong @ 5:43 pm

If you want evidence of the malignancy that has invaded the body politic, look no further than this appalling NYT oped, in which one Alexis Grennell accuses any woman who supported the Kavanaugh nomination, or who doubted his accusers–no matter how absurd–as traitors to their sex:

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.

To start with: “stories of sexual trauma.”  They were, at most, stories, a word that is frequently used to describe works of fiction, with nothing in the way of corroboration, let alone anything approaching what could be called evidence.  Indeed, some of the stories were palpable falsehoods.

But let us continue:

But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. Since 1952, white women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

Note to Alexis: Uteruses have no neurons, so yes, they are pretty stupid.  And for you to suggest that is the body part that should exclusively drive your decisions (and those of others so endowed) is as ridiculous as suggesting any man should follow the lead of his johnson, and will probably work out just about as well. (Aside: where do transgenders sans uterus fit into this? Transgenders with a uterus? I’m genuinely curious.)  (Further note to Ms. Grennell: if you advocate thinking with your uterus, men will naturally and inevitably respond by thinking with their johnsons.  How do you think that will work out, for women in particular?)

Insofar as being handmaids to the patriarchy simply because of their race is concerned, just who is the stereotyping bigot here?  Just who is damning and demeaning vast swathes of women, merely because they have the temerity to vote differently or have different political opinions that the oh-so-superior Ms. Grennell.  (Is “Ms.” still OK?  Or have it transgressed again?!? It’s so hard to keep up–which is kind of the point, because a la 1984 acceptable terminology changes arbitrarily as a test to see who is hewing slavishly to the party line.)  This is not about respecting women, or honoring women: it is about enforcing a smelly orthodoxy and demonizing anyone who dares dissent.

Ms. [or whatever] Grennell is so over such trivialities as due process:

Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her mostly male colleagues applauded her.

Due process?  We don’t need to show you no stinkin’ due process.  Cultural revolutions don’t need no due process.  Or freedom of speech, or presumptions of innocence, or any other procedural obstacles that slow the path to the gulag for those who have committed thought crimes.

I don’t want to belabor the Kavanaugh hearings, because most of what needs to be said has been said.  I will close with one thing that strikes me whenever these sorts of melodramas are played out–which is all too frequently, of late.

That thing is cognitive dissonance brought on by clashing narratives.  The one narrative is that women are physically capable of handling any task that men can.  They can be firefighters, or Army Rangers, or Marine squad leaders, or SEALs for that matter.  They are physically tough and emotionally strong.  The alternative narrative is that women are constantly brutalized by men, which implies (that since someone has poor odds of brutalizing an equal) that women are not the physical equals of men.  Well, both of these things cannot be true simultaneously: yet the same people routinely argue both with intense vehemence, and in particular claim that those who deny the first narrative are hopeless sexists, and those who deny the latter are rape enablers.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The latter narrative relates to another n-th (I can’t keep up) wave feminist tactic (which is also employed by all identity politics grievance mongers): women are powerless victims of some vast social force (usually described using Grennell’s term “patriarchy”).  This is actually a rather canny judo move that uses an assertion of powerlessness to achieve power.  It exploits empathy, and effectively manipulates those who do not dare (either out of cowardice, or the fear of loss of job or social standing) risk obloquy for being so heartless as to trammel the weak.

Ironically, and perversely, this tactic is employed more frequently, more ruthlessly, and more effectively, as the objective evidence in support gets weaker and weaker.  In the United States, female educational attainment is outstripping men’s.  Moreover, controlling for relevant variables, including crucially endogenous educational, career, and life choices that just may reflect distinctly distaff preferences and attributes (including, notably, the possession of a uterus, which should be determinative, according to Ms. Grennell) female incomes are comparable to men.

Yes, women are less likely to be in right-tail jobs with right-tail incomes.  But they are also far less likely to be in the left-tail, without a job and socially marginalized, if not socially detached altogether.  But to suggest a possible explanation for this–that men are higher variance/more leptokurtotic than women–is to bring the furies down on your head, as discovered recently by a CERN researcher who lost his job for expressing this heresy.

An illustration of the clash between the victim narrative and reality came to mind the other day when I saw some UN agitprop that put great importance on the claim that women represent a majority of the poor in the world.

Well of course they do.  Because male mortality is greater, especially among the poor.  Indeed, one major contributor to the poverty of women, especially in developing nations, is that their poor husbands and fathers have snuffed it.

In other words, a factoid meant to emphasize the plight of women is in reality a testament to the rather dismal life prospects of poor men.

Social outcomes are complex. The reductionist explanations du jour–class, once upon a time, “patriarchy” today–are therefore always ridiculous when evaluated using facts and reason: which is precisely why facts and (especially) reason are under relentless assault from the left.   This would be a matter of little consequence were it restricted to the more idiotic corners of academia.  Alas, as Ms. Grennell’s jeremiad on the august pages of the NYT demonstrates, the views of the academic fever swamps infuse politics and drive the Democratic Party.  Meaning that the Battle of Brett (oh, for the innocent days of pine tar!) is merely just one struggle in a long, long war.

A white woman named Amy Barrett is supposedly the front-runner for Trump’s next Supreme Court pick (narrowly losing out this time).  Can you imagine the paroxysms of fury from Ms. Grennell and her like if that does come to pass, and the next candidate for associate justice is not just supported by female Quislings in thrall to the patriarchy, but is one?

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

13 Comments »

  1. Wouldn’t thinking with ones uterus by definition make one hysterical?

    Comment by Bob — October 9, 2018 @ 3:20 am

  2. The “woman are equal but not equal argument” does not hold water at all. You are not only misrepresenting most of opinions, most people do not claim that woman are equal to man in physical abilities only that if they have comparable abilities they should be given a chance to do the job.

    But what you should be ashamed off is that your argument is a simply wrong: Assuming this two groups are equal in distributions of strength but there is a permission for men from the top quantiles to brutalize woman from bottom quantile you could easily have a situation of disproportional rape culture in presence of equality of distribution.

    The thing which makes me so said is that in one of your recent posts you observed that anger and distrust and intellectual dishonesty is at its all time high since 1860’s- and next week you pull something which should be dismissed by smarted high schooler. If you are to be the smart conservative you have to do better.

    Lukasz

    Comment by Lukasz — October 9, 2018 @ 8:26 am

  3. Bob:

    Brilliant

    Prof:

    Couldn’t agree more, but how we get out of this swamp………….buggered if I know.

    Comment by Recusant — October 9, 2018 @ 8:41 am

  4. “In the United States, female educational attainment is outstripping men’s”

    Does that include the degrees in Quantum Theory of Intersectional Grievances?

    Comment by Ivan — October 9, 2018 @ 2:56 pm

  5. In my opinion pointing out the inconsistencies and double standards of these people is a waste of time.
    They don’t care about any of that, there’s no principles present, and no stance that can’t be reversed when it suits them.

    I see all the ‘classic liberal’ left wing academics have recently woken up from their slumber, but only because they are now in the firing line. It’s a pity they didn’t have any backbone for the last three decades. Now that their asses are on the line ‘the academy’ is supposed to be worth saving. If it was so important why didn’t they stand up for it when it would have made a difference?

    Too late I’m afraid, these indoctrinated toddlers are everywhere now. The only consolation is they’ll turn on each other. Identity politics is a race to the bottom and the only currency of value is victimhood.

    Comment by Bob — October 9, 2018 @ 4:51 pm

  6. @Lukasz–As someone who has followed the debate over women in the military, and observed first-hand the process of integration during its early days, I can state categorically that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    “Comparable abilities” is a weasel phrase that is redefined out of all recognition. Amazing how it is interpreted to obtain desired results.

    And you are, quite frankly, just totally distorting my argument when you state that I assume that there is some permission for men to brutalize women. In fact, you are the one who should be ashamed for engaging in such distortions.

    I have daughters. Enough said. Don’t bring that stuff around here again.

    Comment by cpirrong — October 11, 2018 @ 4:29 pm

  7. “What is new in totalitarianism is that its doctrines are not only unchallengeable but also unstable. They have to be accepted on pain of damnation, but on the other hand, they are always liable to be altered on a moment’s notice.”
    – George Orwell, ‘The Prevention of Literature’, 1946
    http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/inv_inn.usm/orwell2.html

    Comment by Green as Grass — October 12, 2018 @ 6:21 am

  8. “to suggest a possible explanation for this–that men are higher variance/more leptokurtotic than women–is to bring the furies down on your head”

    – the explanation for this that I like (and that awaits scientific evidence) is that the genes for intelligence are found on the X chromosome. Women have two, so their intelligence is the average of two people’s.

    By analogy, imagine playing a board game where some of the players roll one six-sided die to determine their move, whereas other players roll two dice, but take the average score of the two. For these players a 4 and 2 counts as 3, for example.

    The average score between the two players groups is going to be the same (3.5), the highest and lowest possible score on any roll will likewise be the same (1 or 6), but the one-die players have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6, whereas the two-dice players have only a 1 in 36 chance of doing so.

    As a result, while there will – over enough time – be no difference in average player scores, the player who needs 1 or a 2 or a 5 or a 6 to win the game this turn is far more likely to come from the single-die group.

    In the same way, having either a very good or a very poor career requires you to be an outlier in some attribute. Out of all the people in the USA, there are just 500 Fortune 500 CEOs, for example. And if the desirable attribute is one found on the X chromosome, well, there are going to more more male outliers than female.

    So more male Fortune 500 CEOs than females, quite possibly 100 times as many; but also 100 times as many males in dirty, dangerous jobs.

    Comment by Green as Grass — October 12, 2018 @ 6:55 am

  9. The people I have known over the years who hated blacks or Jews were less hateful than the NYT.

    Comment by ErisGuy — October 12, 2018 @ 7:26 am

  10. I am still puzzled by something – since when did “advise and consent” turn into a screaming/bitching session for “survivors” who “wanted to tell their story”???????

    Oops – we just saw that, with the likes of Spartacus Booger and the Creepy Porn Gang, which included the Creepy Porn Lawyer as a member.

    Along the lines of malignancies in politics, and “traitors to their sex,” there is now Kanye West, a Negro Who Can’t Read, according to a panel of Negroes Who Can Read on PMSNBC.

    And here I thought Negroes were extinct.

    Traitors to their sex, traitors to their race – life is just so tough for people at the NY Slimes (“all the news that fits, we print”).

    Makes you want to go to a restaurant and scream at the first available conservative, or to swarm in the streets, mob-like, and “direct traffic” in Portland.

    New cage match rules are put in place every day by the lefties (refer to Orwell quote posted above by Green as Grass).

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-10.html#read_more

    I always wear my pussy hat to make sure that I am protected from screaming me-me’s.

    Comment by elmer — October 12, 2018 @ 8:33 am

  11. The game that’s played by lefties and the media idiots with gender identity politics is also played with race identity politics.

    The Negroes Who Can Read on PMSNBC and the rest of the media idiots decided to lambast Kanye West. But you know who else was at that same meeting – ? JIM BROWN. He is not a community organizer, he is a community does – for a long time.

    Not a peep about Jim Brown being in the same meeting.

    From the White House readout of that meeting:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-kanye-west-jim-brown/

    MR. BROWN: If he doesn’t look good, we don’t look good.
    THE PRESIDENT: Great, right? Isn’t that a great statement?
    MR. BROWN: Yes, it is.
    THE PRESIDENT: And it’s so true.
    MR. BROWN: Makes a lot of sense.

    ———

    THE PRESIDENT: He can speak for me anytime he wants. He’s been a great guy. He’s a smart cookie. Smart. He gets it. These two guys — Jim Brown. He’s been doing this for a long time.

    MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

    Comment by elmer — October 13, 2018 @ 7:54 am

  12. a little bit more:

    Leftism is, and has always been, about trying to persuade the general public to accept as truth things that are objectively false, from Marxist economics (“It works even though it never has”) to the New Soviet Man (“We can breed selfishness out of the human character”) to Lysenkoism (“Genes are a myth!”). In current times, we should have shut that shit down the minute leftists told us that asthma inhalers were a greater threat to the polar icecaps than the private jets of millionaires (let’s not forget that the CFC inhaler ban was passed under George W. Bush…another example of Republicans going along with leftist insanity so as not to be slammed as Hitlers by the people who slam us as Hitlers anyway). And now, it’s become a litmus test that to not be condemned as a Hitler, one must accept that a man who thinks he’s a woman “on the inside” is actually a full-fledged biological woman. That’s what the left does. Like cult leaders, leftists are not content to believe their own nonsense. They must force you to believe it, too.

    Because that’s how you know you’ve broken someone, that’s how you know you can bend them to your will…when you can persuade them to see what isn’t there, and accept as truth that which is objectively false.

    And today, the left is demanding fealty to the notion that women don’t lie about sexual assault. We know that’s untrue. The facts conclusively show that it’s untrue. As much as anything on earth, it’s an objective truth that women can lie about sexual assault. It doesn’t mean they always do, it doesn’t mean they often do, and it doesn’t mean that rape isn’t a real and vile crime. But women can lie. It does happen.

    http://takimag.com/article/yes-women-can-lie/#axzz5TuVyRF4t

    Comment by elmer — October 14, 2018 @ 8:49 am

  13. @elmer–True. Re “Because that’s how you know you’ve broken someone, that’s how you know you can bend them to your will…when you can persuade them to see what isn’t there, and accept as truth that which is objectively false.” It reminds me of Cool Hand Luke getting his mind right.

    Comment by cpirrong — October 15, 2018 @ 3:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress