Alicia Machado as depicted on HuffPo
[Ersatz “feminists” are prolonging this fight on the grounds that Hillary was just “protecting her marriage.” So I ask, “what marriage”?]
This blog is about the political debate following Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Donald Trump’s alleged sexism at the tail end of the first debate. What is at stake here?
It is the mark of the upwardly mobile female to profess “feminism” while ignoring the facts of material existence. Many television figures, while promoting “inclusion,” ignore the controversies that have emerged since the second wave of feminism lapped at the shores in the late 1960s and 1970s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
For instance, it is not clear that the claims of liberal feminists that men and women are biologically “equal,” stand up to scrutiny. One need not be a George Gilder-style biological determinist (see Sexual Suicide, published in 1973 as a critique of abandoned and abandoning women) to note that women who combine the roles of mother and breadwinner (i.e., who seek a career outside the home), may experience role conflict, apart from socialization in “sexist” institutions, as many feminists claim. Are such conflicts built into our female “nature,” or are they a symptom of the incomplete transition from home-bound Mom to female leader (e.g., in the media, military, or in politics and academe)?
Or take the pseudo-feminist outrage that Trump insulted Alicia Machado by allegedly calling her “Miss Piggy”. Do not these same defenders of science lecture us about obesity and the importance of exercise and nutrition? When Michelle Obama emphasizes such issues, do liberals carry on about her sexism and “fat-shaming?” (For a liberal feminist treatment of “fat-shaming see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-reaction-to-trumps-fat-shaming-reinforces-toxic-ideas-about-fatness/2016/09/30/800fba0c-872b-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html?utm_term=.192c7341b412.)
(For another controversy within the dominant social democracy, see the fuss over (materialist) “male science” versus mystical “female science.” Feminist science, it is said by our betters, would prioritize Green politics as the sane corrective to bizarre male empiricism. The “posthumanist” Donna Haraways of the world are in the same bag as the female defenders of equality in all things.
Fabrizio Terranova still of Donna Haraway film
Speaking of Hillary Clinton’s rumor mongering, how do we know when we are not fascists?
Who owns the facts?
The Clare Spark Blog 
“Are such conflicts built into our female “nature,” or are they a symptom of the incomplete transition from home-bound Mom to female leader[.]”
Yes! “[S]uch conflicts are indeed intended” if not “built in” to the female nature. And, if you don’t know, by evolution, or if you prefer, by a god.
There is no doubt, that whatever other social conflicts existed when females, and males, understood the proper role of females, and males, in families, that life was better and not just for the male, but for the product of the female/male relationship and society in general.
Even so, we do not defend the mistakes that males have made, and still make, and maybe will always make, in carrying out their proper role in the plan that evolution has, or a god if you prefer, for the female-male relationship. Some folks think of these mistakes as part of Original Sin, a very clear and workable concept in cosmology–YES, cosmology, if not more high-falutin’ and erudite terms, such as religious orthodoxy provides.
Glad you asked.
Comment by barbaro70 — October 2, 2016 @ 6:12 am |
Feminism, humanism, historicism, liberalism etc are all ,as Herbert Schlossberg eloquently stated in his book, idols for destruction. The final NO to relativism’s blessing on barbarity is the Christian mind. Sorry Clare no more,no less.
Comment by Aram Hagopian — October 1, 2016 @ 8:49 pm |
http://frame-poythress.org/review-of-herbert-schlossbergs-idols-for-destruction/. I could not disagree with you more. Are you a moderate too?
Comment by clarelspark — October 1, 2016 @ 9:12 pm |