Specifically, I'm thinking about the Left, and how all their cleverness seems so entirely, well, dumb.
Consider the Obama campaign and their "Julia" narrative, of how a woman doesn't need to marry because the State will be there for her every day of her life (not saying this is true, of course, just that they're saying it).
And so consider: the Left's narrative is saying that if women support the Leftist State, that the State will provide for them. Essentially, they're going back to the Bad Old days of the Patriarchy and saying that women must submit to their husbands. And yes it is a Patriarchy because the Obama Administration in particular is a boy's club and yes it is submit because this Administration is quite clear about who they think are enemies.
The irony of the whole situation is more delicious than my morning cup of coffee (which, I must hasten to add, is particularly delicious). The fact that all these super smart Lefties are positively innocent of any grasp of the irony is even more deliciousness on top.
Most people seem to be incapable of analyzing anything beyond Step One. As in, a politician passes a law "designed" to have a desired effect, but is surprised by the unexpected consequences (yes, that is sarcasm) of individuals' responses that often not only negate the new law's passage, but make the original situation worse. Laws-by-proclamation (read: policy statement, executive orders, and other expressions of fiat without debate) are even worse, because who will tell the king (president) that he is not only wrong, but goofy? Especially since we all know that he is the smartest man in the room. (Yes, that is more sarcasm.)
ReplyDeleteActually the thinking on the left, dumb as it may seem, is winning out over that of the right becuae most people seem to prefer being mindless. What a shame.
ReplyDelete+1 on Chris' comment. Sadly, our side is not necessarily much better about getting further down the road because they over-react at the beginning...
ReplyDelete"Obedience"?
ReplyDeleteWhere?
Where is obedience mentioned in the "Julia" ad? "Julia" is not dependent on maintaining the good will of one actual man. She is dependent on the impersonal benevolence of a mechanical god, which is much too big and powerful to want anything from her in return. Besides, it's not giving her its own resources. It's sending men with guns to extract resources from other men, on her behalf.
The old way, she has to keep her husband happy for him to keep her happy. The new way, she never has to meet the guy, because other man she never meets will take his money and give it to her whether he likes it or not. If he resists, they'll pistol whip him and put him in a cage, but she doesn't have to think about that. She just stands around looking slender and stylish the whole time.
Patriarchy, like any normal human interaction, involves meaningful reciprocal obligations. But "Julia" does nothing in return for her payoff other than voting. I know it looks the same to you. But it is not the same. However you slice it, "Julia" is being provide with more resources than she produces. Sure, she may have to put up with the TSA and some other bullshit, but from day to day, her ordinary life involves no human obligations that she can't freely renege on at a whim, without consequences. She doesn't WANT to read Forbidden Books. She doesn't WANT to think Forbidden Thoughts. She doesn't want to own guns or drive a powerful car or rock the boat in any way at all.
"Julia" does not represent the end of female dependency. She represents the industrialization of female dependency. But under conditions of industrialized female dependency, very, very few men get anything in return for the resources they provide to women. To a feminist, that makes it a great deal: Women get the resources without having to give anything much in return.
If you think Aretae's so smart, take his advice (last I checked, anyhow), and read Roissy. It's very important stuff.
Women don't see dependency as a shameful thing, any more than a fish is ashamed of being wet. They take pride in (preferably) the quality of the man they depend on, or failing that, how much resources they're extracting from him, and how respectable they get to be while they're doing it. The "Julia" ad is trying to spin dependency on the government as a stylish, respectable state of dependency on a very high-quality provider: Something to take great pride in. It's an aspirational lifestyle ad. Her dependency is not "ironic" or in contradiction to the intent of the ad. It is the product they are selling.
You are a man. You are not a woman. It's a mistake to think you can think the way a woman does. You can't. There are things in this world you don't already understand perfectly.
(Irony #2: The left is always telling us to put other people before ourselves, blahblahcommunityblahblah, and all that noise -- but when they say that they're not talking to "Julia", whose role is alwyas to take and never to give. They're talking to you and me, whose role is to submissively pay "Julia"'s bills all her life while she shacks up with a series of bass players).
Wow. That ad....wow. I've got chills, now.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Walker, "They're talking to you and me, whose role is to submissively pay "Julia"'s bills all her life while she shacks up with a series of bass players)."
ReplyDeleteActually, anybody but you (and me, and the other readers of this blog).