The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Things Clueless White People Say: @Plutoburns and the Patriarchy

Posted on | August 25, 2017 | 1 Comment

 

Pardon my use of “clueless” in the headline, but various other adjectives were considered and rejected as possibly offensive. It’s important for the reader to understand that @Plutoburns, the person talking about “women invested in the patriarchy,” is a white male who produces a lame (and little-watched) YouTube series about Japanese cartoons and other such nerdy topics. It’s also important to know that the conversation that led to this weird remark began with transgender pornographer Zachary Antolak a/k/a “Zinnia Jones” a/k/a “Santana Kennedy” making an all-out defense of Hillary Clinton:

 

Let’s pause, reader, to consider what it says about our politics in 2017 that the most ardent admirer of Hillary Clinton is “Zinnia Jones.”

This is how you get more Trump.

The coalition constructed by the Democrat Party can’t win an election because it is organized to attract kooks, freaks, losers and weirdos, and is therefore unpalatable to decent, normal people. Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla, a liberal Democrat, has tried to talk sense to his party about their identity politics problem, but they won’t listen:

The reaction of liberals to Lilla’s book has been overwhelmingly negative, which may simply suggest how deeply the rot of identity politics has penetrated his political comrades in arms.
Predictably, the New York Times finds Lilla’s analysis thoroughly distasteful, and published a review by Yale University History Professor Beverly Gage that dismissed Lilla’s critique as “trolling disguised as erudition.”
Writing in The Los Angeles Review of Books, Columbia law professor Katherine Franke went further still, comparing Lilla to David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Identity politics is the disease, and Trump is either a symptom of that disease or an attempted treatment, depending on your perspective.

Trying to win elections by claiming that people who don’t vote for you are racist sexist homophobes is a good way to lose an election.

At any rate, when Zachary/“Zinnia” asserted that Hillary Clinton “did nothing wrong” in her campaign, and that people who voted against Clinton owed her an apology, this unleashed a firestorm of criticism, mostly from leftists who had voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries, and who detest Clinton as an “establishment” politician. “Zinnia” was accused of a “cultist” mentality for treating Clinton as “infallible.” Then “Zinnia” declared “I relate to her immensely. How do people look at her and not see themselves?” It was to this that @PlutoBurns replied, “mostly its men who refuse to believe the pay gap is a problem and women invested in the patriarchy.”

To begin with, the “pay gap” between men and women is a statistical mirage, an apples-to-oranges comparison that fails to account for real differences between men and women, not evidence of discrimination.

 

The “pay gap” myth has been so thoroughly debunked that it seems futile to engage in argument with anyone stupid enough to believe it. But what about the claim that “women invested in the patriarchy” explain Hillary’s defeat? To refute this, we have to begin by asking what “patriarchy” is and how a woman can be said to have “invested” in it.

Hey, @PlutoBurns: Your mother is “invested in the patriarchy.”

That’s right — women who have sons want their sons to be successful. Mothers want their sons to grow up, get a good job, get married and produce some grandchildren for Grandma to spoil. Insofar as any woman is in favor of male success, she is “invested in the patriarchy.”

Every married women is “invested in the patriarchy,” whether she realizes it or not, because her husband’s success benefits her and her children. It is idiotic for young feminists (mainly college girls and other unmarried women) to blame their woes on “the patriarchy,” because the least patriarchal men in the world are young bachelors playing the familiar game of trying to get sex without commitment. The kind of selfish creeps a girl meets using Tinder or some other dating app? Those guys are not the “patriarchy,” but it is the emotional pain women suffer in the hookup scene that is the chief source of misery that causes young women to call themselves “feminists.” If guys were more patriarchal, they’d be romancing these girls with an eye toward marriage and making babies. And because married women are more likely to vote Republican, the best way to solve the most common complaint of young women . . .

Well, this is how you get more Trump.

The coalition of kooks and weirdos assembled beneath the Democrat banner are fools if they think they will defeat the patriarchy. There is simply no feasible alternative, as Steven Goldberg pointed out in his 1973 classic, The Inevitability of Patriarchy. The smart move for any young person, male or female, is to learn how the system works and find a way to succeed within it, rather than to base your hopes on a radical fantasy of overthrowing the system. And anyone who takes “Zinnia Jones” seriously as a political commentator is as deluded as he/“she” is.

 

Comments