Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Yo, Feminists: How May Conservative Men Reply To Catty Female ‘Journalists’?

By Steve Pauwels

Whatever prestige was enjoyed by rock-music tabloid cum news source Rolling Stone was taken down a peg or two with revelations that its reportage concerning a brutal, University of Virginia fraternity rape was completely unverifiable, likely bogus. It appears, whatever her motivation,  the whole allegation was the product of a troubled female’s fevered imagination.

The magazine owned its bungle, sort of; but not everyone’s eager to take the contretemps as gravely as they ought. Take New York Congresswomen Kirsten Gillibrand, who editorialized the phony accuser should be exempted from criticism: ““Victim blaming … on her for coming forward is not the right approach … One of the challenges with survivors of … rape is [t]hey don’t think they will be believed; they think they’ll be blamed.”

Would a male scammer elicit the same non-response?

Color me confused! Are women and men the same, or not? Should they be treated as equals without any distinctions? Are ladies superior, more resilient than their opposite-gendered counterparts? Or more vulnerable? The gals among us — are they towering oaks or hot-house flora, easily wilted?

Pop culture — TV sitcoms, dramas, even commercials, films, music, etc — incontestably sketches an overriding viewpoint: the mother, wife, daughter, sister, with rare exception, is smarter, wiser, more together overall than any men-folk on display, who consistently are lunkheads in befuddled need of her assistance.

Until, that is, in a flash there’s widespread, Gillibrand-like reaction to a women’s issue; in which case the rest of us are left flummoxed: Are we to view the members of the “fairer sex” as Joan or Arc or Sweet Polly Purebread? Or perhaps something else altogether?

Aggressively mixed signals on this pyrotechnic debate are de rigueur — and apparently we’re never supposed to notice. Pragmatically speaking dudes are backed into a prickly spot: How are we supposed to act around a bunch that comprises 50% of the human population?

Traditional attitudes long had been that women shouldn’t serve – for what were deemed obvious reasons — in combat front lines, as firemen, street-patrolling police officers, etc. Any suggestions along this thinking today? Hoo-boy: spark the indignant harrumphing from present-day Boadiceas and their anything-a-man-can-do-a-women-can-do-better advocates.

Not that long ago, Hillary Clinton – who just officially entered 2016’s Oval Office quest — rode to a U.S, Senate seat on the fuel of outrage over Republican opponent Rick Lazio’s daring to physically approach her during a campaign debate, challenging her to sign a campaign-finance petition he was holding . How ungentlemanly! What a bully! 

Had it been Hillary’s hackish spouse being accosted by this male rival would that have been copacetic? Fully within bounds? Anyone else bespy a problem here for the always-treat-women-like-men die-hards? Back in 2000, Hillary-loving progressives and their press abettors effectively shrieked at the suddenly electorally doomed Lazio, “That’s no way to treat a lady!”

Read more: Clash Daily



 

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on BarbWire.com

Send this to a friend