Tag Archives: Jeanne Kirkpatrick

BACK TO MISOGYNY

My article for this blog, dated 4/10/2017, was entitled, “Back to Racism.” The article outlined another article written by Mehdi Hasan for theintercept.com, entitled, Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic issues. See my article, Back to Racism, April 10, 2017.

Dated April 11, 2017, in an article entitled, Bozell & Graham Column: Hillary Blames Self-Hating Women for her Loss, from newsbusters.org, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham (no relation, to my knowledge) review who Hillary Clinton is holding responsible for her loss in the 2016 presidential election.

According to Bozell and Graham, Hillary Clinton granted her first interview since losing the election on April 6, 2017. The interview took place at the “Women in the World” conference, organized by leftist editor Tina Brown. When the former Secretary of State was introduced by comedian, Samantha Bee, on cue, Ms. Bee genuflected, “You deserve to hear it 100 times, it should have been you.”

Bozell and Graham went on to indicated that the assignment to interview Mrs. Clinton fell to New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof. He later wrote a column on his Hillary chat, beginning in the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again and speaking her mind.

In fact, the entire leftist population should be humiliated that Hillary, the anointed one, as told to us by the press, lost to Donald Trump, an unenlightened oaf. Mrs. Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to be president as this nation has ever had.

The feminists at this conference and I would suspect that all of the conference attendees would call themselves feminists, reallywant to know why Americans hate women so deeply, and what is wrong with those self-hating white Republican women.

One of the questions Kristof lobbed at Clinton went like this: “This is a women’s empowerment conference, so I have to ask. Fundamentally, a man who bragged about sexual assault won the election, and with 53 percent of the white women’s vote. How is that, in the 21st century, what does it say about the challenges that one faces in women’s empowerment, that in effect, misogyny won with a lot of women voters?

According to the Newsbusters’ article, Hillary loved this softball question and replied, “Certainly, misogyny played a role. This just has to be admitted.” She and Kristof mulled over what he called “abundant social science research” that we admire men for being ambitious and successful, but find women “less likeable” when they are powerful.

Bozell and Graham state that it has been five months since the election, and the best analysis these people can muster sounds exactly the last weekend of the campaign when Barack Obama told the American people, “Don’t be a sexist. I want you to think about it because she is so much better qualified than the other guy. She has conducted herself so much better in public life than the other guy.”

It is certain no conversation took place between Kristof and the former presidential candidate regarding her husband, the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton’s “targeting of women.” Hillary never allows an interviewer to ask her about her role leading the “Bimbo-Bashing Patrol” to destroy the reputations of her husband’s victims.

Back to what Kristof calls, “abundant social science research.” So, ambitious and successful women are less likeable than their male counterparts? That may have been true in the mid-1970s when it was just becoming fashionable for women to seek careers in what were previously considered “male-only” or “almost male-only” fields. Women often had to take on a more “hardened” facade to get attention and convince her bosses and colleagues that she was indeed worthy of the position.

Fast-forward to the last half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. The hurdles are cleared, the mountains are reduced to rolling hills, the awkwardness has been worked through. Yes, there are still incidents of inequity, but as things have certainly improved since the mid-1970s, they will continue to improve. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, though, until Jesus returns to earth and sets up his 1000-year kingdom.

When women began making headway in the workplace, older male baby boomers, male pre-baby boomers, and World War II generation males still mostly dominated. Many of these men did have a hard time accepting women. They began their careers in male-dominated environments and then suddenly there’s an influx of women, and minorities also. They assumed they would never have to complete with anyone except white males. Many were resentful and were difficult on the women, and the minorities.

Many of those white males are now dead, and the older baby boomers are retiring. In a few years, there will be very few of these men in the workforce. The men who remain will all have begun their careers working with and competing with women. The same is true about minorities. Your forty-five-year-old middle management guy entered the workforce the early to mid-1990s. Sandra Day O’Connor was a Supreme Court Justice, Geraldine Ferraro  made an unsuccessful run for Vice President on the ticket with Walter Mondale, Madeline Albright was Secretary of State, Carol Mosely Braun, a black woman, was elected Senator from Illinois, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and Madeline Albright was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations and became Secretary of State in 1997.

I am not buying what Hillary and Kristof are pushing. I will never believe it was misogyny that resulted in Hillary Clinton, the first female nominated by a major political party for president of the United States, losing her bid. Stances on the issues played a major part. While a majority of Americans liked former President, Barack Obama, they did not like the direction in which the country was moving and were not onboard with many of his policies, plus Obama’s economy remained sluggish throughout his presidency. Also, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a pure businessman, saw regions in traditionally Democrat states where there was substantial dissatisfaction among workers, many of which had lost their jobs after the 2008 crash and were struggling to find work. Candidate Trump went after these voters and convinced them to cast their ballots for him, and they did.

Clinton supporters and still whining about her lost and can’t come to terms with it five months after the election. They’re to be pitied.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE HATE

According to numerous sources, a college textbook at the University of South Carolina entitled “Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives” portrays former President Ronald Reagan and conservatives in a very negative light.

The book portrays President Reagan as a sexist who was also insensitive to minorities. The book also indicates that conservatives view people as lazy and corrupt. Furthermore, it states that conservatives like Reagan “take a pessimistic view of human nature.”

In its continued dressing down of President Reagan, the book further indicates that he failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency. Well that’s a downright lie unless you consider Sandra Day O’Connor, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Elizabeth Dole insignificant. In fact approximately 1,400 women were appointed to policy making positions by President Reagan.

I do remember the Reagan presidency and I remember President Reagan as being a very upbeat positive president and one that really cared about people and had faith in people. He wanted all Americans to succeed, and worked to give all Americans opportunity to succeed. He realized that as a nation, we had to power to do that. But he also realized that equal outcome could never be guaranteed. And it can’t.

Since the book paints conservatives negatively, does it paint liberals/progressives positively? Of course! According to Fox News, the book says that liberals believe in people and have a positive attitude about people. If liberals are so positive and think so highly of people, why are they attempting to get more people on the government dole? Why do they think they need to tell us what kind of health insurance to buy? Why do they think they need to tell us what to eat? It’s because they think we’re too stupid to make these decisions for ourselves.

Conservatives on the other hand do believe in people and believe that the American dream still exists. We love a good success story and want as many folks as possible to become successful. But we live in an imperfect world, and this world will never be perfect until Christ Jesus returns to earth and establishes his thousand year kingdom.

There will be people among us who just can’t seem to make it or can’t seem to be in the right place at the right time. Sometimes you just have to keep trying. And there’s the chance it might never happen. The Bible tells us that the poor will always be with us and that it is our Christian duty to help the poor; and that is certainly true. Belonging to a couple of organizations whose purpose is to help others, I’ve been lucky to be around good people, people that open their wallets and give their time freely to help those in need.

Back to this book again, it’s just wrong, it’s lies. And if this small section of the book is full of lies, what kind of garbage is in the other sections?

Facebooktwitter