One thing I didn’t see mentioned in my brief dips into the media cesspool last night was any mention of PC counter-reaction. But there was still that in play, as well as the other factors mentioned (including Hillary’s corruption and the Democrats’ disastrous “Obamacare.”)
Anti-PC sentiment must not be written out of the post mortem. Leading up to the election, I read a lot of “misogyny” talk about the opposition to Hillary Clinton. Malcolm Gladwell even said misogyny could be the only explanation for the widespread disgust with the “Democratic” candidate.
That, my friends, is one stinking heap of PC bull/cow/calf/trans(bum-steer)-shit right there.
I think many people (men, of course, but many women, too — since most American women repudiate the feminist label along with the Third Wave misandrist agenda) react to this kind of hysterical narrow-mindedness and think: . . . well, I won’t use the exact words with which they tend to express their disdain.
Bill Clinton was roundly hated by a third of the population. It was he who was impeached, not Hillary. Whatever you say about the validity of the hatred against the man and his wife, it was fairly evenly divided. Most of my Clinton-hating friends talked about Bill a lot more than Hillary. And if Hillary was given an extra dollop of loathing, it was not because she was a woman, it was because, unlike Bill, SHE POSSESSED NOT ONE OUNCE OF CHARM. He was silver tongued; she was and remains shrill, unpleasantly mean and seemingly anti-empathic. When she pulled the “I feel your pain” ploy, no one really believed her. We were not beguiled, not even a little bit.
But the misogyny charge kept on coming up. Couldn’t there be something to it? Well, of course, maybe. But I didn’t feel it. I know many women who admire Hillary. I don’t hate them. I simply don’t like her. It’s not women in general that I hate, but, instead, a handful of corrupt, unpleasant, conniving, lying, powerlusting accumulators of power and pelf.
The most idiotic thing I heard this season? The PC line that because we call her “Hillary” instead of “Secretary Clinton,” we show her disrespect. And that this was just a sign of our “misogyny.”
She receives the casual moniker “Hillary” mainly because calling her just “Clinton” would confuse her with would-be Dynast No. 1, her husband Bill.
Remember, please: we called George W. Bush “Dubbya”! Was that misandrist? No. It was a sign that we needed a nickname (he, the giver of nicknames couldn’t complain, estopped as he was) and that his father George Herbert Walker Bush had made distinguishing father from son a tad difficult. For some reason “Junior” didn’t seem specific enough. Oh, well, we did disrespect him, we of the anti-war crowd, but it wasn’t that general a thing. It was specific to him, because of his countenance and demeanor and most of all his policies.
We were merciless.
Similarly, if some of my friends and I were relentless against Hillary Clinton it was no sign of misogyny. It was a sign that we treated women as we treat men: according to one standard. And the reason Hillary was a bad candidate is that she was corrupt, unlikeable, and untrustworthy.
Defending her by attacking we who distrusted her for our “hatred of women” was one reason we voted against her.
Is not this clear?
Here. This is the message that feminists need to understand, along with the rest of the impolite harridans and cucks of political rectitude: hating one woman is not hating them all; if women are to be treated as men are treated, then sexual (“gender”) solidarity has got to go. Grow up, leftists.
We are killing PC. And maybe the only good thing Trump will accomplish is to micturate on the fires of verbal tyranny.