Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats swing together. Eighteen years ago, Senate Dems stood lockstep in support of keeping Bill Clinton in office. Yesterday they stood lockstep in support of forcing Al Franken from office - even though Franken's sins (unwanted tongues and touching) are of a considerably lower order than Clinton's (assault and rape). A shift is underway in the Democrat Party, even if - as Caitlin Flanagan notes in The Atlantic - it's not quite there yet:
Let's not fool ourselves. "I believe Juanita" doesn't just mean that you're generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist.
It was - which was why some of us said we believed Juanita at the time.
Democrats are heavily invested in identity politics. Unfortunately, almost by definition, most of the available identities are minorities (blacks, gays) and some of them are barely statistically detectable (trans). The obvious exception is women. In 2016, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. In that sense, Hillary not only failed to shatter the soi-disant glass ceiling, but, remarkably, managed to lower it. That's what sticking with the Clintons did for the Dems.
So they've belatedly realized that their over-investment in the violent rapist and his enabler proved near-fatal last year. To win in 2020, the party has to get back some of those white females. Hence the decision to go full-scale war-on-women. Which means Franken and John Conyers are expendable. The Democrats are preparing to weaponize sex as they've weaponized race since the civil-rights era.
With hindsight, they were on their way to doing this a quarter-century back, before they got detoured into licensing Bill Clinton's pathologies. Here's what I wrote almost twenty years ago in the Speccie - April 1998 - when Gloria Steinem was arguing in The New York Times that dropping your pants and inviting a woman to "kiss it" was "not harassment" but an example of "the commonsense guideline to sexual behavior that came out of the women's movement" - and only uptight GOP squares felt otherwise. Tell it to Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, John Conyers and all the other Clinton karaoke acts of the last month.
This piece is anthologized in my book The [Un]documented Mark Steyn, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available at the SteynOnline bookstore and make a lovely and thoughtful present this Christmas season. Where was I? Oh, yeah. The Audacity of Grope...
During the Gulf war, a United States pilot was captured by Iraqi troops. As luck would have it, she was a female pilot, so the Iraqis raped and sodomized her. Safely back home, the plucky gal declared that this was all just part of combat risk.
"Combat risk": there's a lot of it around at the moment. In the ongoing war between women and the phallocratic tyranny, Gloria Steinem recently clarified the rules of engagement. For months now, conservative women have been assailing feminist spokespersons for their inconsistency with regard to, on the one hand, Anita Hill and, on the other, Paula, Monica, Kathleen, a former Miss America, a former Miss Arkansas, a couple of stewardesses on the '92 Clinton campaign plane, etc. Those of us in the phallocratic tyranny have mostly had to twiddle our thumbs in the members-only cocktail lounge with a martini in one hand and a showgirl in the other while the little ladies slugged it out. But, in The New York Times, Ms Steinem has now issued a definitive ruling:
"It's not harassment and we're not hypocrites."
The founder of Ms magazine and the National Women's Political Caucus says "for the sake of argument" she's willing to believe all the President's female accusers. But, even so, what's the big deal? After considering both Kathleen Willey (a "reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life") and Paula Jones ("he asked her to perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers"), Ms Steinem comes to the same conclusion: "It never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took 'no' for an answer." He showed a fine understanding of "the commonsense guideline to sexual behavior that came out of the women's movement 30 years ago: no means no; yes means yes."
I confess I didn't notice the piece at first; I was too busy drooling over the Playboy Implants of the Month centerfold. But a pal pointed it out to me and my reaction was as immediate as his: as the eponymous swinger of Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery would say, "Shagadelic, baby! Let's shag!!" It turns out we'd both completely misread "the commonsense guideline to sexual behavior that came out of the women's movement". For years, the more straightforward feminists have stomped around in fierce T-shirts demanding, "What Part of NO Don't You Understand?" Quite a big part, it seems. I didn't realize "No" includes one complimentary grope with optional pants-drop and positioning of feminist hand on aroused male genital area. If she doesn't go for it, well, no hard feelings (except on your part): just extricate your fingers from her underwiring and move on to the next broad. Your feminist credentials are impeccable: you didn't rape her, so give yourself a pat on the back and the next one a pat on the butt.
Frankly, I was skeptical. "It's too easy," I said to the guys after reading Ms Steinem's column. "There must be a catch."
But we went through it again, and there isn't. If this is feminism, hey, let's have more of it!
At this point, I ought to declare an interest: I've met Ms Steinem just once, on the eve of the 1993 presidential inauguration. She told me an interminable anecdote about coming across a turtle in the middle of the road, moving it to the shoulder, only to see the turtle waddle back onto the asphalt again - I think the turtle was meant to represent the American people, or the Democratic Party, or maybe Jimmy Carter. Anyway, my mind wandered and, like most predatory males, I found myself undressing her with my eyes, Ms Steinem being one helluva looker, as many of these feminist babes are. If only I'd been au courant with feminist orthodoxy, I'd just have lunged straight for her bazongas.
Nor is it just Ms Steinem. Anita Hill, the distinguished former University of Oklahoma law professor, enthusiastically endorsed the new feminist line on the President's behavior: "We aren't talking about sexual harassment," she declared.
But, in that case, what does constitute sexual harassment? In her recent book, Speaking Truth To Power, Professor Hill offers some specific examples, like the revealing uniforms waitresses at the Hooters restaurant chain are forced to wear. Shocking.
This is, as legal scholars say, an "evolving" area. According to a survey in Working Woman magazine, over 60 per cent of respondents claimed to have been sexually harassed. Presumably the remaining 40 per cent are just women who've been at the receiving end of one of the President's "consoling hugs". But, in theory, there are 70 million women out there waiting to bring sexual harassment lawsuits. They can't all be Hooters waitresses. One who did sue was the woman who objected to a colleague displaying a photo of his wife in a bathing suit on his desk. Others include the college students in Houston who are suing their drama professor because, by teaching Shakespeare, Molière and other sexist oppressors, he's creating a "hostile work environment". He, in turn, is suing the university for sexual harassment because, by supporting the students' suit, they've created a hostile work environment for him. At the University of Pennsylvania, a woman in a short skirt complained of a "mini-rape" because some fellow strolling past observed, "Nice legs." If only he'd thought to drop his pants and invite her to "kiss it".
In such a world, many of us potential rapists have found it easier to stay indoors and finish that novel or concerto we've always meant to write - although even then our sins will find us out. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, according to feminist musicologist Susan McClary, reveals "the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release". As they say at the Vienna Conservatory, "What part of Nein don't you understand?"
Happily, in this minefield of confusion, Ms Steinem has now simplified the rules. In the dark ages, senior executives would simply sidle up to the new girl in the typing pool and utter boorish, chauvinist, intimidating cracks like, "Why, Miss Jones, you're beautiful without your glasses." Today, under Ms Steinem's "commonsense guideline", the sensitive Clintonian New Man can instead say, "Why, Ms Jones, you're beautiful without my pants on." I think I speak for most unreconstructed old sexists when I say that we'll gladly tear up the offensive snaps of the missus, willingly forswear insulting remarks about nice legs, lay off allusions to that misogynist Shakespeare and swap that rapist stuff by Beethoven for something more enlightened ("Yo, Bitch, Sit On This") if in return we can solicit fellatio from every well-stacked chick in the accounts department.
There's just one thing that bothers me. As I arrived at the office with my boxers round my ankles, I couldn't help thinking: this new revised feminism is great for guys, but what's in it for women?
I mean, I know Monica Lewinsky was the only White House intern to land a full-time job with the federal government, but, for most other women, Ms Steinem's license to grope could mean a lot of unwanted traffic across their brassieres and a lot of executive penises being waved in their faces. What does the sisterhood get in return?
Well, as Gloria sees it, it's an acceptable "combat risk". "For one thing," she writes, "if the President had behaved with comparable insensitivity toward environmentalists, and at the same time remained their most crucial champion and bulwark against an anti-environmental Congress, would they be expected to desert him?"
Indeed. If, say, he'd signed the Kyoto treaty, would they overlook his own excessive emissions? Absolutely. "If President Clinton were as vital to preserving freedom of speech as he is to preserving reproductive freedom, would journalists be condemned as 'inconsistent' for refusing to suggest he resign? Forget it."
By "reproductive freedom" Ms Steinem means abortion. Indeed, the most sensible interpretation of her strategy is that it's an excellent way of drumming up business for her favorite industry: if every man is to be allowed one free pass at every female subordinate or job interviewee, the law of averages suggests a lot more women will find themselves exercising their right to "reproductive freedom". This is what the leadership of the women's movement has been reduced to: defending a man's right to trouser-drop in order to protect a woman's "right to choose". Of America's 1.6 million annual abortions, only 15,000 are for any kind of fetal abnormality; less than one per cent of all pregnancies are due to rape. That leaves over one in four healthy fetuses voluntarily terminated as a cumbersome form of belated contraception. Leaving aside the individual consequences - variously traumatizing, dehumanizing or physically harmful, the real "women's health issues" that feminists never talk about - what is it exactly that women are choosing?
Some women have been embarrassed at the apparent contradictions of Ms Steinem's thumbs-up to unwanted breast-fondling and fellatio-demanding. But in fact it's a logical harmonic convergence between the first move - the initial lunge - and the last resort - the abortion: Ms Steinem has constructed defenses of both sexual harassment and "reproductive freedom" that boil down to ...party time for guys! There's a bumper sticker popular with feminists: "I'm Pro-Choice And I Vote!" Now we men can get one of our own: "I'm Pro-Choice And I Grope!"
~from The [Un]documented Mark Steyn, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available at the SteynOnline bookstore.
As always, any pro-grope members of The Mark Steyn Club should feel free to disagree in the comments section.
Speaking of The Mark Steyn Club, Mark will be back later today, Friday, with the first part of a brand new (and highly seasonal) radio serialization in our series Tales for Our Time. If you're not yet a member, there's still time to join and hear his latest crackerjack audio entertainment from Part One all the way to the end.
For more on The Mark Steyn Club, please click here - and don't forget our new limited-time-only Christmas Gift Membership, complete with a handsome hardback or CD set personally autographed by Mark.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
59 Member Comments
Hmmm, yes, Stein used to be a looker, in her Bunny days. Goes to show what self-loathing will do to a person.
Hillary though is pure Emma Goldman, the anarchist babe who tried to become a prostitute but she was told she didn't "have the knack." I think that's when anarchy became her destiny.
Your photo shows two females who in another era would be openly called hags. The fact that Steinem survived her childhood is to be lauded. That she became a hateful woman is not praiseworthy but it is nonetheless obvious. Hillary is emptiness personified, but someone is still not really a person. "Humanizing" her --- after 25+ years -- never did succeed with someone who must have been born bitter.
The original Women's Libbers - the old biddies who marched for the vote -- they were dead-set against abortion and horrified at the thought of it. How sad that the pillar of the family - the mother -- has become the first to draw fire from these women who are just too eager to get rid of children.
It takes a female to be really destructive: those 2 faces you showed are proof positive of the truly negative. The worst kind of whore is a political whore.
The Liberals were unsuccessful at stealing the last election. Now they have found a new way to steal elections. Overturn the voters choice.
I would hope our Congressmen would discontinue resigning over non-chargeable allegations and stick to their fairly elected jobs to represent the people who voted for them. If not, our government maybe shut down due to no one left to represent us and not because of some budget not passing. Anita
The women are electing to have new rules of conduct put in force, but I don't believe they should be retroactive. And they should make their new rules clear instead of making them up day by day. Anita
Just a grammar point ... when the statement is worded 'sexual assaults' the use of the possessive in means the acts have been done, and the accusations are making them public. Is there something we've missed in all the news about Moore? Hadn't seen that anything actually has been known in any measure to have been done, just that there were very tremble-ly statements decorated with a dab-dab hanky, a patty-back and arm rubbing you-can-do-it lawyer with a script, and a pretty inept forged note that was an attempt to place the person into the claimed time frame, which is totally needed for the hanky-story. The addition of the legal assistant's initials is absolutely hilarious.
The rhetorical leap in all this is very telling. It's like the Jurassic Park DNA in the mosquito - lots of appealing theory with a splice of recombinate mumble-proteins-centrifuge and some frog genes... off we all go on the exciting ride and who cares if that teeny little hop across the chasm of impossible that actually can't be done with fossils (because it's solid mineral rock now) but... we're all jumping up and down for the political version of T-Rex to rise up with the goat leg dangling out of its toothy jaws.
The tape of Citizen Trump was him talking about the cheap attraction of wealth and power, which tots sums up the grubby reality of Hollywood. But the Jurassic Park leap of faith and his words went through the Democrat alchemy machine (Hillary) to be argued with irate hanky-rending on all media outlets as actionable 'actions.' Our faith in our hearing was so shaken after a couple weeks of this we had to go back to the infamous tape and... no-no it was talking about what some women will do - yeah, we've actually seen the certain types in action at office parties. Most other women quit those parties early after politely saying hello to everyone and go home to watch TV.
Citizen Trump's laughing on tape about the vapidness of high society must be constantly compared to Lawyer Hillary's laughing on tape about hiding evidence to get her brutish client out of a conviction, who she stated she knew was guilty, of raping a child so horribly the girl almost died and was maimed for life.
While the topic is fresh, from San Francisco, of all places, I offer a heartwarming billboard message I just drove past: "Be the CEO your parents wanted you to marry." Merit-based advocacy for women with a human touch!
Misguided environmentalists, whose policies have resulted in forests becoming overgrown and susceptible to trees dying by the millions, by disease and bugs like the bark beetle, create the conditions that lead to devastating wildfires, and for this and other reasons I think of environmentalism as being destructive to the environment.
Likewise, Republican politicians ought to just come right out and state the obvious: feminism is dangerous to women, and doubly so if you're a trusting woman looking to them for protection or advocacy. It's easy to see that a woman victimized by one of the many predator politicians in the country would feel betrayed by the leading symbol Gloria Steinem in her op-ed in the New York Times. What is with Republican politicians sitting on their heels and never going on the offensive?
One of the great features of the Club is to have Mark unearth gems of his from the past we never saw or forgot to help enlighten whatever the present controversy is.
Yes, and to see how clear-eyed and truth-telling certain writers on the right have been compared to none on the left.
The underlying issue with Moore is big city Liberal jealousy. The city folks have to actually assault the women. Down in Alabama, Moore simply has to ask for her parents' permission.
And, when members of the cult hear the exalted leader Steinem say dispositively, "It's not harassment and we're not hypocrites," that's good enough for them.
But in this case they're ignoring Steinem in the race for male trophies. In an era where "discomfort" calls for executions, the mobs are going after any male who likes girls, which is increasingly passe in liberal circles these days. In public, at least. Fortunately these mobs will soon be forgotten and we'll be back to human nature as usual. The fragile folks who are perpetually uncomfortable will take a little longer to cure.
The pervnado term is a good one, as this has taken on a life of its own and is (seen to be) uprooting everyone in its path. Distinctions are blurred when the normal behavior of men toward women is an offense. What is left that isn't?
Democrats are in crisis-management mode as they multitask by shoving Republicans into the tornado's path. It would be a good time for Republicans to clarify terms, expose feminism and correct distortions, but they lack the courage and resolve, as many are paralyzed by conflicting interests and their own bone-filled closets, and prefer to wait it out in the cellar.
Yes, really good analogy and final image! They seem to be waiting it out in the cellar drinking the rare vintages all by themselves and there are no surrogates to come to their rescue like King Rudolph of Zenda had handy. Ah hah! I finally found the oblique meaning to "The Prisoner of Zenda." Thanks for lighting the way! I knew it was in there somewhere. It took me a while but better late than never.
In a very recent session hosted by Frank Luntz, a pollster for Republicans for Conservatives, he asks some people in his sampling audience from Alabama about their opinion of Roy Moore. One man actually said that forty years ago parents would be thrilled if their fourteen year-old was invited out by a DIstrict Attorney, and that plenty of mommies and daddies would be okay with it. This fellow said his grandmother was married at thirteen and it was not uncommon for young teens to be married back then. It sounds like they have decided in Alabama that the policies of the Liberals are destructive and they are putting aside what the nasties in the mainstream media have to say about their nasty guy and are taking their own experiences with them to the polls. I'm sure the "More, More, More" song by Andrea True Connection is getting a lot of play there in Alabama now.
Mark replies:
Thank you for mentioning Andrea True in a political context. So did I a few years ago.
Glad to have caught it yesterday morning on the radio as I was pouring my black coffee. I put down my carafe and started dancing about the kitchen island. The dogs looked quizzical.
I thought it was a great tribute to Roy Moore and the fighting Alabamans for Liberty. I could just hear it blaring from his campaign RV rolling around the Bama Counties. I didn't know it was a song about the singer's days of porn. My education continues to blossom and grow here at the Mark Steyn Club. Thank you!
Although Steinem, et al, covered for Bill Clinton exposing himself, which led to feminism's being outed as a fraud (and now the NY Times has been exposed for deleting Steinem's hole-digging) a rebranding/repackaging campaign by the news media and other Democrats could recapture women voters the Clintons lost, unless proactive energy keeps the record clear. A source document as powerful as this is valuable ammo, so study up, Republicans!
Mark:
Your recent post on Steinem helps my puzzlement about the Progressive campaign against male harassment. But my speculation includes another factor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this harassment campaign, starting with the expose of Weinstein, began with Republican candidacy in Alabama of Moore for the U. S. Senate.
I think that the most effective change in the future of our law may be the Senate confirmation of Judges, especially Justices of the Supreme Court. Moore's candidacy in Alabama for the U. S. Senate, is challenged by the Democrat candidate, whose campaign is aided by accusations of Moore's sexual assaults.
Democrats are willing to throw their myriad accused supporters like Weinstein under the bus to pursue this campaign. Even Democrats from safe constituencies, like Franken and Conyers, are expendable, as is Bill Clinton's already tarnished reputation. The future of the law is that important.
Perhaps this harassment campaign has gotten out of hand and extended further than intended. But it also continues to feed accusations of Trump harassment. In fact, the unprecedented viciousness of attacks may also have resulted from Progressive shock about their dismal anticipation of future Supreme Court decisions.
John Quigley
Eugene, Oregon
50 years after Ted Kennedy
30 years after Barney Frank
20 years after Bill Clinton
11 years after John Edwards
10 years after Gary Condit
2 years after Anthony Weiner
now, democrats are really, really, really serious about sexual harassment.....honest they are
Sorry to point out, some of these numbers appear to be from Wikipedia.
55 years after John Kennedy. It seems unfair to omit the daddy of them all.
Happy Birthday, Mark! Unless Wikipedia is confused, I believe today is your b-day. Many happy returns. Also according to Wikipedia, today is the birthday of Horace, as well as Georges Feydeau and James Thurber - writers and funnymen, you are well placed with them beyond your proximity on the natal chart.
Mark replies:
Thanks, but it's not my birthday, and Wikipedia is indeed "confused". I don't know how that date wound up there, but I'm happy to leave it uncorrected as a reminder that even for the most basic info Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Also, in a world with so much identity theft, the more rubbish that's out there the better.
Alas, I would have shared a birthday with you.
Mark replies:
Well, Happy Birthday, Matthew - and this is just for you.
Well, Mark...when is your damn Birthday, then.
We Sagittarians want to know.
In a world flooded with so much information, and prominent "corrections" posted daily by reputable outlets, all sources should be used with caution. Deciding which information is useful is a crucial skill, and many are poorly equipped to get it right. Another failure of the education system.
Birthdays are among the least useful bits, and among the most arbitrary. Consider that on Mars, we'd have fewer birthdays, but would be exactly the same age. Just as they say in bars it's five o'clock somewhere, it's always our birthday somewhere..Happy birthday to all!
On board 100% with this commentary.
Miss Gloria's empty core values were obvious from the get-go when she decried 'objectifying' and then processed to wallow in it with male centerfolds. Rule No. 1: if it's wrong, it's wrong. Period. This corrosive trick has been done a lot - corrupting by engaging in the wrong on the grounds of 'proving how wrong it is.'
The reality of her elite class status and connections were proved by publishing a glossy magazine. Let some average Jane try that and see how far it gets. It'd be on newsprint with local ad coupons for car washes and mini-blind installers before dying on the local diner tables unread.
But the product and lifestyle she was the face and mouthpiece of has been like the comment about tombs of the rich - all sophisticated and sleek on the outside, dead bones on the inside. Because of this mass media saturation and dissemination, it's happened so fast. The debasing of the young females - as in girls and teens - in this society today is frighteningly grotesque. The stealing of youthful innocence and fresh spirit, and in all cases, the drop in integrity of of their physical health over their lifespans from viral and bacterial infections and damage from years of artificial chemicals.
At first, the birth control pill mandate scream-fest seemed silly and irrelevant. But, after discovering that a jaw-dropping % of U.S. girls are using it from puberty to 'manage' their cycles; by the time they reach age 25, they've got a decade-worth of daily ingesting artificial chemicals that wildly interfere with their normal physical development - not just 'cycles' but bone, muscle and nerve formation for their lives. There is no way that the fertility, quality of health and life-spans of these girls has not been grievously degraded. Most of the physical damage done cannot be undone. The statistics ahead will prove this generational catastrophe.
The adults who should know better, from parents to educators to doctors to media who haven't protected these youth from such exploitation are the ones responsible, but too many promote the superstitious excuse of 'things just happen randomly' not 'actions have consequences.'
Thank you. Every once in a while, somebody says it perfectly. The LEFT created this environment and the standards for comportment, and entertainment.
They hollowed out the culture of my youth. when I look back, the last films I enjoyed were in the 50's. By the 60's we were being force fed May December Romance between unlikely duo's.... Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn ... REALLY ... I mean REALLY?
Leslie Caron and Cary Grant... I didn't buy it the first time. Am I alone here?
I remember watching Houseboat with my mom and dad - Father laughed and wondered how Grant could come out of his trailer to deliver those scenes with a straight face. A gushing Sophia Loren .. heaving bosoms and bare feet.
It was embarrassing.
Cukor and company were the standard bearers that would redefine what is desirable, beautiful and acceptable. I'm with Fred Astaire... Hollywood went to hell with the arrival of Jimmy Cagney and the bad boys .... American sat back and allowed the demons of MGM and Paramount to use Tropes to mesmerize us into acceptance of a very toxic culture.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tropes
As an adult I discovered the Catholic definition of marriage as a sacrament, a sacred union, and the intimacy within that union as also sacred as it leads to the creation of human life. This astounding discovery explained all of the despair I felt as a teen when I was told that premarital sex was a necessary part of finding a marital partner. I've tried desperately to teach my daughter of the sacredness of her own physiology, after all, God came to the world through a woman, not from a volcano, not out of the ocean in a tidal wave, not out of a storm in a bolt of lightening, but as a baby, small and needing love, born of a woman. This historical event was revolutionary in giving women a level of esteem in society they'd never previously had.
Men are just as profoundly damaged by feminism. Young men have feelings. Those feelings may become inured as their sex drive overwhelms their desire to be loved, but they still bear the murder of their offspring and the myriad venereal diseases that come with empty and meaningless sexuality if not the emotional damage of multiple meaningless sexual encounters.
When men love their daughters enough to stand for the Judeo Christian values that civilized our ancestors this will come to an end. There's nothing like a beautiful, virtuous young woman to put the rest of us to shame.
I read that something like 25% of millennials would consider a long-term relationship with a robot rather than with a human being. This is what happens when sex is "all about me" and reduced to physical lust. God's boundaries are healthy and wise. But in today's screwed-up world, propositions like "He created them male and female", "for this reason a man leaves his family for his wife" and "honor your father and mother", are considered oppressive, and evil. Foundations are crumbling. The outcome cannot be good.
I had a really good human development/ human psychology/ abnormal psychology professor in nursing school. She demonstrated to us that baby boys when they're born and put to their mother's breast go through an imprinting process in which their brain chemistry changes as they bond with their mother. The brains of young men go through the same process when they have their first sexual experience causing them to bond with the first person they are intimate with. In an evolutionary sense this is good for the young woman as she needs the man to be devoted to her when she carries his child, gives birth and raises it. Allowing for sexual promiscuity deletes this process creating more fragile marital relationships.
Another aspect of this that has bothered me for years is the way the left introduces homosexuality and sexually deviant behavior into the public school curriculum has a strongly adverse affect on young boys as they imprint sexually much more strongly than young women do. This is why groups like nambla, GLAD and GLSEN want gay propaganda in the public schools as early as possible. Girls are less likely to deviate sexually but they eventually do when exposed to enough 'deviancy as normal' propaganda. I put my kids in a conservative Christian school when I found this happening in the public schools in Massachusetts. I'm surprised that other parents tolerate the destruction of their children with such complacency, but political correctness is like a form of mental illness and it permeates society here.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your comments here and just above.
Your words are an inspiration to a man who has grown quite Cynical as he ages.
Very true and good! This society needs to return to the concept that children are blessings from God, that families are 'wealthy' by their children, that children have a beauty, a worth and a dignity that transcends society's fashions and indulgences.
Obama using the bully pulpit to assert that children are 'burdens' was an ugly nihilistic public statement, effectively encouraging abortion and self-inflicted barrenness. There's something that goes with that. A number of children growing up today are aware that their mothers aborted other siblings. What does that tell a child? They had a brother or sister and the person they love the most aborted them? The parent may say they love them, but... if they really knew how to love wouldn't they not have done that? How much can a child count on that parent - an uneasy, scary, dark place deep inside that no one, especially children, know how to deal with - it actually can't be. So what do they do? Displacement... cutting, drug use...
Teens will defend abortion because their mother had one or two or three, so they defend it because if they said it was bad, they'd be saying their mother had done something bad and they love her - it'd be like a betrayal in their hearts. It's really a deep, deep dark place this has created in many families. This is an enormous spiritual shattering. We need to set examples that the advice of society isn't always right, that children do have great value set not by humans, but by God and that all sins and mistakes can be forgiven by God and healed. Martin Luther called it, "That little barking dog of regret..." yes, but older, wiser and healed... to be able to help others.
Thanks! Please never lose hope.
That is so well put! Thanks!
We seem to be overthinking what Steinem said - she simply said the recent panics don't rise to assault, or even "inappropriate" except to a few with a grudge for whom facts don't matter. She's technically correct.
I try, Elizabeth [the motto of my site is Nil Desperandum, but it's getting harder and harder as the days roll on.
Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi:salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.
Perfection only exists in God, not in mankind. God bless you with greater forbearance, patience and hope. Think of human beings in terms of the creature they are, and try to be forgiving.
Your political correctness remark grabbed me. Yes, it has gone around the world three times like a virus upon us and we can't find the cure. I remember reading CS Lewis's "The Abolition of Man." This was a real scales-fell-off-the-eyes moment for me.
I believe at the core of this mental sickness is the belief that mankind is killing the environment and ultimately the earth, and this is psychologically making man to feel he has peaked, there is no saving him from himself and it thus would follow the loss of the motivation to procreating and populating the earth. So, with that as the premise why the hell not be whatever gender one wishes, why the hell not identify as an alien, if that's how you feel today? It's as if societally we're on an unstoppable suicide mission.
Why then, doing opioids seems like one's contribution to saving the planet. Aborting babies seems like a good way to save the planet. Following some numskull like Gloria Steinem's advice seems like a viable plan, because after all, if women are the ultimate vehicle for bringing humans into the world, what difference does it make if they become mere objects of abuse? We woman must be enemy number one! It all fits perfectly.
That tape of Lawyer Hillary cruelly enjoying the big legal joke she pulled laughing about hiding evidence that denied a brutalized young girl justice has been well-known for years before that photo up there was taken with the two 'iconic' 'feminists' cozying up together. What's so funny about helping a man predator run from his horrific crime against a child? Poor girl, she had the audacity to survive the attack. Why isn't it a photo of Steinem, champion of women against exploitation and abuse angrily confronting Hillary?
Ultimately it comes down to the left's hatred of Christianity. Pity it never occurs to them that civil society will no longer exist in its absence.
You made a lot of excellent points, but I still don't see what the anti-Christianity connection is to laying the destruction of the planet on humans. I'm hanging my hat on this hope: maybe if they're so hell bent on not reproducing they will be taking themselves out of the population equation. It will take a while but the liberal numbers will dwindle by their own hands. I saw a bumper sticker yesterday: when fascism arrives in America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. These people who stick that on their chrome tails have to be brain dead not to see what Islam and Antifa is up to.
The left hates Christianity because it's the antidote to their ideology. The ten commandments are basic to having a civil society. Intrinsic to those commandments are the healthier impulses of humanity that allowed western civilization to flourish. When children learned the ten commandments at church and at school they had fundamental beliefs that made them instinctively reject the dogma and policies of the left. The basic tenets of Christianity are incompatible with leftist ideology.
It never occurred to me until you said it, Carol. I think I was seven, thereabouts, when I first saw My Fair Lady. I just loved the singing. But you're right, kind of creepy pairings of stars playing the leading parts, the more I think about it. Fred Astaire was the king of the old movies for me. I loved to watch him dance. I'll never forget the summer between ninth and tenth grade when I didn't have a summer job. I was so depressed but then they started showing reruns of all the Fred Astaire movies and I stopped caring that I didn't find a little job. It's funny but it's the one summer that stands out in my memory from those high school days.
"so give yourself a pat on the back and the next one a pat on the butt". OMGosh! -- Stein has moved from the merely prescient to the prophetic. (Or, maybe Al Franken is a long-time, overly-literal Steyn reader?)
I'm of the belief that Frankin's "future" resignation is a feint and a poorly executed one at that. The Dems have already pivoted into overplaying the move in calling on DJT and RSM to do the "honorable thing" like their man Frankin.
I predict that when Moore wins and Trump ignores the calls, he will respond to the forgiveness of Minnesota's voters and remain in the Senate.
I think you're right about that. This is why Franken didn't out right step down. The left will always project what they want you to see while they work toward the destruction of Judeo Christian civilization in the back ground.
Mark wrote: Which means Franken and John Conyers are expendable. The Democrats are preparing to weaponize sex as they've weaponized race since the civil-rights era.
-Indeed, in the funhouse mirror-lined halls of Leftism, individuals must always be ready to sacrifice themselves to The Cause. Leftist Ideology values Ideas over Human Life. Once your usefulness is deemed at an end by your Comrades, by your Cell, then it is your Duty to allow yourself to be put to death — hopefully, figuratively and not literally.
-Will Franken really resign? He sure as Hell left the possibility of a reprieve open in his non-apology-apology yesterday on the Killing, er, Senate Floor yesterday:
It would seem that Franken was told by his Comrades to stand in front of the adobe wall and wait. If Roy Moore wins, then Al will get it in the back of the head. However, if the Judge loses, well then, he may be allowed to prostrate himself before the womyn of The Senate, non-repent for his False Consciousness, and remain a member of The Greatest Masturbatory, er, Deliberative Body In The Worldâ„¢.
Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/07/al-franken-resignation-speech-transcript-full-text-285960
-As for the weaponizing of sex: the Left has been laying the groundwork for that since they kick-started the Modern Feminist Movement some five-plus decades ago. [Stacy McCain has been documenting this in minute detail for the last several years.]
That was one of the all-time worst apologies I've heard in my entire life. Listening to that lout go on, I thought he was next going to announce that he was just about the most perfect human specimen the world had ever seen and it was a wonder the world had not yet realized the gift he was. Go away, Al, please before we see another sunset. Disgusting that the likes of him made it into any public arena anywhere.
Agree fully, Fran.
But I must say I'm not surprised that such a Misfit succeeds in this day and age, in this World turned upside down.
If buttercups buzz'd after the bee
If boats were on land, churches on sea
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse
If the mamas sold their babies
To the Gypsies for half a crown
If summer were spring
And the other way 'round
Then all the world would be upside down!
The world is packed to the bursting point with this new breed of social misfits. It's as if they have developed in the intellect capacity but in the social self-awareness categories they are still in their infancy. It's appalling and terrifying. They're walking among us and you never know when one will pop up. At least now, we're aware they're out there. That's a starting point to defeating the real enemy. And to know them like the back of your hands. At first sign, they must be exposed for what they are.
Thanks for that verse! To be sung to the tune of "When the King Enjoys His Own Again." Oh, this is going to be a merry Christmas alright!
This essay is as relevant now as it was when it first appeared in the Speccie nearly 20 years back. What's more, it seems the progressive Left has gotten even more convoluted in its quest to destroy everything that is decent about heteronomative sexual relationships and the family unit. With people like Weinstein, Lauer and whoever else gets off on masturbating in front of a woman, has made perversion the new normal. Trouble is that Steinem, Clinton et al believe that no one has the intelligence or acuity to see through their disingenuousness.
The Left relies on the solidness of it's belief that only they possess The Secret Wisdom [the Gnosis] and the majority of people in the World are fools.
I always, therefore, enjoy watching their breakdowns when Nemesis has her way with their Hubritic souls.
It would be great if we could link to that Gloria Steinem quote. And throw it back at her all over the place, especially whenever she has anything to say about what is going on now.
Mark replies:
She's staying very quiet - because she came to understand, eventually, that with that column she threw away her integrity and her reputation. The New York Times understood, too - which is why they've eighty-sixed the full column. You can see a jpeg of it here, and read the thing in its entirety at a contemporaneous feminist chatroom, or whatever the word was back then.
PS My piece is from The Spectator in the Nineties - the pre-link era. The Speccie is the oldest continuously published magazine in the English-speaking world. If I include a quote from The New York Times in a Spectator column, you can take that quote to the bank.
Thank you Mark for the link to the original Gloria Steinem article. Besides leaving the door open to predators, this helps explain why most feminists don't oppose burkas, FGM, and Islamification generally. If the only issue is whether or not she says "no", then the natural next step is proof: the stipulation under Islamic Sharia law that 2 male witnesses must be present for the "no" to be valid.
That's the longest Steinem piece I've read, thanks for sharing the link Mark and happy unbirthday - we all have 364 each year according to a literary source. Her primary point seems to be in the difference between a work environment that is hostile - the Clarence Thomas story was more current then - and consensual relations although the pants dropping does seem nonconsensual as described. I didn't pay much attention to politics at the time as I was busy with my job but I immediately thought the intern was a set up - no one saves their dirty laundry unless they have a motive. Any old columns on this angle: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mossadbug.html ?
Regarding a few of the other comments - yes physiology, due to autoimmune risks, suggests saving it for the one and only is healthiest for a woman and her children and ideally men should respect that - whether out of being a gentleman or being religious or simply out of respect for the law.
/Disclosure: I am an anti-groper and survivor of child trauma - an age too young to understand consent./
The anti-Likud viewpoint noted, the bugging and blackmail seems plausible. As Mark recently said on Fox, the left explicitly told us at the time that character didn't matter and this was nothing more than a private, consensual relationship. Far from that, it must be at the top of risks presidents, and others, caught in honey pots pose to national security.
I'm taking applications for my daily Grope-A-Thons! Needless to say, Ms. Steinem needs not apply.
A bit off-topic, but... Steyn... Steinem. Could it be that Mark and Gloria share a common Belgo-Germanic ancestor somewhere in ye olde gene bath haus?
Clark,
Hilarious off-topic remark . . . made my morning here in frigid mid-continent-USA.
Tom in Missouri
Well, Gentlemen, 'stein' means 'stone' in German, so I've always thought that Miss Gloria's name should be pronounced 'Stone-him'.
As for our Host: well, he is a Rock of Right Reason.
Bob,
I must admit to never have given a thought to Gloria Dumkopft - in any language.
As for Herr Stein, R3 sounds good to me.
Tom in Missouri