Posted on | December 31, 2016 | 3 Comments
“If you’re a woman in today’s job market, it can be hard to find work. That’s why I recommend you ‘lean in’ — to the arms of a dying rich man.”
— Madeleine Davies, March 19, 2015
Madeleine Davies (@Madeleine_Rae on Twitter) is insane and a feminist, but I repeat myself. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 2010 and went to work for Gawker Media in 2011 and is now a “senior writer” at Jezebel, the feminist site that stumbles onward like a zombie despite the fact that its parent company got bankrupted by a professional wrestler. In short, Madeleine Davies’ life has been a long series of the kind of bad decisions you expect from a mentally ill liberal arts major. One imagines a therapy group of ex-Gawker writers meeting somewhere in Brooklyn, each telling the story of their lives leading up to the disastrous turning-point: “And then I went to work for Nick Denton.”
Madeleine Davis now works for Gizmodo News Group, a subsidiary of Univision that includes Jezebel and other ex-Gawker properties. Last month, Univision laid off 200 employees, because “social justice”:
Between 200 and 250 people are facing layoffs at the Spanish language conglomerate Univision, the company announced Wednesday, yet another reminder of the grim economic realities weighing down many newsrooms.
The layoffs, which were first reported by the Washington Post, will hit nearly 6% of the company’s workforce, primarily affecting Fusion, Univision’s millennial-focused news website that has struggled to find an audience. . . .
In his memo, [Univision executive Isaac] Lee said that Fusion will continue to be “a hub for some of our investigative work,” and will “focus its efforts by doubling-down on its award-winning reporting on issues of social justice and diversity.”
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) December 31, 2016
Meanwhile, a certain nutjob “senior writer” at Jezebel is still getting paid. Ms. Davies’ natural métier is humor (e.g., “I’m Pretty Sure Most Straight Men Would Have Sex with The Rock”), so her mental illness isn’t necessarily a problem. If a joke-writer is a barely functional wacko swallowing Zoloft tablets in an effort to stave off a complete psychotic meltdown, well, that’s not a good thing, but she’s just writing jokes, OK? However, an editor might think twice about assigning an unhinged kook to write about something serious, like politics.
This is where feminism becomes a career strategy for the emotionally unstable liberal arts major. Her irrational rage and frequent outbursts of lunatic gibberish can be justified as a commentary on her condition as an oppressed victim of heteronormative patriarchy. And nobody in the offices of Gizmodo News Group would dare criticize Madeleine Davies, because she might erupt in a tantrum of shrieking fury and threaten you with a class-action lawsuit for harassment and discrimination. Feminism is always a lose-lose proposition for the employer. A company that doesn’t hire enough women (and “enough” is a quantity subject to constant revision according to whatever percentage feminists consider a satisfactory quota) can be sued for discrimination. However, if you ever make the mistake of hiring a crazy feminist, you can never fire her.
Madeleine Davies could organize Jezebel staffers into a coven performing Dianic Wicca rituals in the coffee-break room, and Gizmodo executives couldn’t say a word without risking a federal discrimination complaint.
In terms of employment policy, feminism is just legalized blackmail — a shakedown racket, extortion as “social justice” — and the strategy of executives at Univision is crudely cynical: Keep a certain number of feminist writers on the payroll, as a loss-leader and a “social justice” gesture and, if anyone ever notices that the executives collecting enormous salaries are mostly white guys, you point in the direction of Madeleine Davies: “But we’re paying her, OK? She’s a senior writer!”
Tokenism, quota hires, everybody tiptoeing around the office trying to avoid offending the Perpetually Indignant Office Bitch — yeah, it’s almost as if there’s a reason why 63 million people would vote for a guy who personifies America’s resentment of that “social justice” crap.
Shortly before 4 p.m. on Election Day, Madeleine Davies published her column in defense of voting for a woman because she’s a woman — “representation,” as the Tumblr feminists say, while bemoaning the death of a lesbian character on a CW network sci-fi show. Symbolism is deeply important for emotionally unstable liberal arts majors, and Madeleine Davies explained this appeal in her Election Day column:
Earlier today, I walked to my neighborhood polling place wearing the same Barack Obama t-shirt that I wore when I voted for the very first time in 2008. I thanked the lady who handed me my ballot for donating her time to the noble cause of voting. I walked into the booth where I then cast my vote for Hillary Clinton, getting a little weepy as I did so, because I feel so immensely fortunate to vote for the person whom I hope and believe will become the first woman president. It was symbolic and it was performative, but what an honor to wear this symbol, to perform this role.
Yeah, and #LexaDeservedBetter, maybe. Or on the other hand, perhaps the dead lesbian trope in popular culture really is symbolic, in some kind of Joseph Campbell comparative mythology sense. (Warning to casual readers: This next digression might be a long one.) Feminists and other secular progressives, influenced by Marxist theories of “class struggle,” would suffer an existential crisis — the loss of their weltanschauung — if they ever seriously considered either of two hypotheses:
- There is a natural order of human life, where the strong survive and flourish, and the weak are trampled down into servitude;
- The Bible is true, and there is a transcendent God whose will may be known, whose laws are just, and who is eternally sovereign.
Both of these hypotheses must be excluded from consideration, if we are to buy into the Heaven on Earth promises of progressive cult leaders who urge us forward down the road to Progress and Equality. No matter how often radical egalitarianism fails — and the catastrophe in Venezuela is the latest example — the True Believer can never let go of what Thomas Sowell called The Vision of the Anointed. Having ruled out the possibility that the Bible is true, our atheistic elite are now fanatical devotees of the Cult of Social Justice. They cling to their quasi-religious belief system with a grim certainty, like Mohamed Atta piloting that Boeing 767 into the North Tower. “Vote Democrat” is their “Allahu Akbar.”
No matter how often you explain to them what’s wrong with their ideology, they refuse to let go, holding onto their faith in Equality and Progress like a 4-year-old clinging to his security blanket. Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once published a book called The Mirage of Social Justice, the title of which summarizes the basic problem — progressives are pursuing an illusion, an impossible utopian ideal.
Has Madeleine Davies ever read that book? Of course not. Has anyone employed at Jezebel or Gizmodo Media Group ever read anything by Hayek or Ludwig von Mises or Thomas Sowell? Liberals love to assert that everyone who opposes them is “ignorant,” and yet I’ve read more Marx (and Engels, and Lenin and Trotsky) than has the average Marxist, just like I’ve read more feminist theory than have most feminists. It’s not that conservatives are “ignorant” of the Left’s ideas, but rather that the Left’s ideas don’t work — and they stubbornly refuse to read any of the books that explain why their ideas don’t work. The Left prefers ignorance to knowledge, because the facts are not their friends.
“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
Edmund Burke nailed it more than 200 years ago, but the Left refuses to accept reality. Their madcap dream of equality has been producing tyrannies since the Reign of Terror in France, and the 20th century saw Marxist-Leninist regimes murder some 100 million people. Yet these debacles have taught the Left nothing, nor have they learned anything from the increasing political, economic and demographic woes of European social democracies. Not only does the Left fail to understand history, they can’t even do simple arithmetic. During his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama proposed two years of free community college tuition for everybody. Who’s going to pay for that $60 billion giveaway? The Democrat answer: Who cares? The national debt is now approaching $20 trillion— that’s trillion with a “T,” meaning $20,000,000,000,000 — and interest payments on the national debt cost $223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget, in 2015. So for every dollar the IRS collects from taxpayers, only 94 cents is available for current needs, and the annual budget deficit in fiscal year 2015 was $439 billion out of $3.7 trillion. Yet there is no end to demands for even more deficit spending from the Moocher Caucus of Democrat voters who think the federal government exists to provide them with “free” stuff that the taxpayers can’t afford. In New Jersey, lesbians are suing for their “right” to free in-vitro fertilization treatment, and Democrats will denounce you as a homophobe if you don’t want to pay for it. The Democrats have ceased to be a political party and have become a psychiatric disease. Democrats no longer have policies, they have symptoms. But I digress . . .
Gripped by despair over the failure of Hillary Clinton to defeat the villainous Trump, feminists have become more irrational than ever. All their demented antics over the past two years — hysterical protests about “rape culture” on campus, etc. — were merely a prelude to the psychotic madness that has seized them in the wake of Trump’s election.
In 2001, when I was about 14 years old, my male friends invented a game that went like this: one of them — and it was always the same one — would sneak behind me, slap me — and it was always me — on the ass and run away as I sputtered, angry and humiliated.
It was a game that everyone but me seemed to love. I was a girl who mostly hung around boys because I hadn’t yet learned that female friendships, though infinitely more confusing, were also infinitely more rewarding. I was the self-professed type who loudly preferred spending time with men over spending time with women because they were less dramatic and complicated. And so I surrounded myself with boys who found it funny to grab my body when I least expected it, and were spurred by my discomfort to push me further and more painfully. . . .
Pause here, reader, and ask: Who were these boys? Where was this high school in which 14-year-old Madeleine Davies endured this treatment? Who were the parents of these boys? What, if anything, was the school administration doing to prevent such misbehavior? These questions are relevant because Madeleine Davies invokes her adolescent humiliation as an experiential justification for her anti-male political rage:
The truth . . . is that while it’s been ingrained in me to chase their acceptance and approval and be “in on the joke,” I was raised from birth to fear men, to never trust or expect them to protect me. Thirty years of being suffocated by their desires, whims, and power has only proven the fear as founded. In the years that followed . . . I would see good liberal boys, the ones who had feminist mothers and organized progressive political demonstrations, go completely silent when a high school acquaintance accused one of their own of rape. . . .
Do you see the irony here? Ms. Davies evidently grew up in a “progressive” community, and “good liberal boys . . . who had feminist mothers” were among the males she “was raised from birth to fear.” Nearly half a century after the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, one might suggest that “liberation” has in many ways made life worse for young women. Such a suggestion would be denounced as “sexist,” however, so we are expected to bite our tongues, rather than to remark that American life was more civilized before all those hippie radicals began to “change and pervert the natural order of things.” As I say, progressives cling so ferociously to their weltanschauung that they wouldn’t even know how to begin considering the possibility that they are wrong. The Kool-Aid drinkers in the Cult of Social Justice are incapable of doubting their own moral superiority, their belief in Progress and Equality being the quasi-religious faith by which they will bring about Heaven on Earth. And now, Madeleine Davies confronts the Beast of the Feminist Apocalypse:
Since the election of Donald Trump, I have felt like a clairvoyant who, instead of seeing ghosts, sees the specter of male destruction everywhere I look: in the money I spend, in the industry I work, even in the minds of other women — the ones too foolish to realize that men don’t protect them anymore or, somehow more offensive to me, the ones who’ve cynically embraced the concept of female empowerment as a brand or an excuse for selfishness, effectively wringing the term of its power and significance.
For the first time, I don’t know how to move past my boiling anger or laugh it away. Also for the first time, I have no desire to. Preferable, I now think, is to stop laughing, to become as repulsive as I can in an insult to these men — so many men — who hate women and the women who adulate them. . . . There are days when all I want is to become a human road sign, a blinking hazard to any man misfortunate enough to cross my path: “I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR SIGHT. I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR EVERYTHING.” . . .
Watch out, guys — she’s shifted into CAPS LOCK RAGE MODE.
Today, my 24-year-old paratrooper son came home from Fort Bragg, bringing with him his wife, an art student. His twin brother came over with his wife, a nursing student, and their two sons, ages 3 and 1. It was a happy holiday gathering, with five of our six children, two grandchildren, and my 18-year-old son’s girlfriend. My wife fixed a delicious meal, then my kids recruited me to participate in a Nerf-gun battle down in the family room, before we all sat down to watch the Peach Bowl, where Alabama defeated Washington to advance to the collegiate football national championship game. Life is good here, in our family’s modest Appalachian home, which makes it all the more amusing to sit here and see Madeleine Davies spew her “boiling anger” toward “these men . . . who hate women,” inspiring her “to become as repulsive as I can,” because “I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR EVERYTHING.” She continues:
But it’s the bad women who have always, however grotesquely, provided the limited examples of female resistance: Salome, demanding the head of John the Baptist; Medea punishing her husband’s betrayal with infanticide; Flannery O’Connor’s Hulga, who knew her birth name Joy was all wrong because it was light and airy and she wanted to be dense and ugly, like a swamp; Toni Morrison’s Sula, whose destructive joie de vivre led her to trample on the moral codes of others; the heroines of Ferrante, often cruel and spiteful because they’re too smart for the men who anchor them to the miserable world that they created. All of the women terrible in someway or another — but also strikingly bold in their effrontery.
Women, though not always “good,” have always been nice. And look where it’s gotten us. Stripped of our rights, degraded, and still under the thumb of men. . . .
What a strange choice of heroines she makes with Salome, daughter of Herodias, whose illegal marriage John the Baptist had criticized, leading to John’s imprisonment and his execution at Salome’s request (Matthew 14:3-11, Luke 3:19-20, 9:9, Mark 6:17-28). Is Salome an example of “female resistance” worthy of emulation? Wasn’t she rather an example of the decadence of the Judean aristocracy under Roman rule?
Ah, but this is the problem with our young progressives, isn’t it? They don’t know history, and therefore are unable to distinguish between progress and decadence, just as their lack of morality renders them incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. All they value is power, and to a feminist like Madeleine Davies, the example of Salome — who used her power, such as it was, to have a prophet beheaded — must be heroic. Yet the feminist pursuit of power had failed, and Ms. Davies sees Trump’s election as proof that women are “degraded . . . still under the thumb of men.” Her rage is as infinite as it is incoherent:
I am not yet disgusting to the right people — the ones with power are blind to me. Any optimism I’ve had in regards to changing the destructive course of history has faded, with most of my idealism, into the past. . . . Now, all I hope for is to cause my own sort of minor destruction to the men who would otherwise take things away from me. I can never hurt them as much as they’ve hurt us (nor do I have the heart to), but can I hurt them at all? . . .
I’m writing in a circle that keeps leading me back to the same questions: How do I become ugly to these people? How do I offend their sensibilities with my very existence?
Well, Ms. Davies, you’ve done enough already, haven’t you? I do not think Americans are as irrational as you are, and I think that you are the reason why Donald Trump will be our next president. Not just you, of course, but all your comrades in the feminist movement — Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Anita Sarkeesian, Alexandra Brodsky, Jaclyn Friedman, et al. — have made yourselves quite the collective nuisance during the past few years, reminding a lot of people of exactly why they hate feminists.
Does that look like a mainstream political movement to you? Do these people look like they can be trusted with political power? Do Americans wish to be governed by CAP LOCKS FEMINIST RAGE?
Everybody’s got their own theory of why Trump won, but has it occurred to anyone that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy — and the outspoken feminist support for her campaign — caused the American people to take a closer look at what feminism really is? As I have been saying for months, Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and maybe 63 million voters recognize this truth.
Thanks to you, Madeleine Davies, our next president will be your worst nightmare. Inspired by our new president’s policies, maybe the executives at Univision will take a long, hard look at the bottom-line value of Jezebel staffers (meeting weekly for Wicca rituals in the coffee-break room) and decide they don’t need so many “senior writers.”
My advice to you, Ms. Davies, is to update your resumé and get out while the getting’s good. You’ve got so many ideas about career strategies, and I’m sure many potential employers will be impressed by your qualifications as Perpetually Indignant Office Bitch. Good luck!
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) December 31, 2016