The ruthless media attacks on Sarah Palin may be seen as just more assaults on a conservative. But in fact they demonstrate a rabid bias against “women” from one faction in America – male media liberals – that always has claimed that it stands for “women’s rights”.
But in truth male liberals are not at all in favor of rights for all “women”. They select a certain minority of “women” out for certain ‘rights’ and they ignore, or debase, the rest. And even those they say they respect they often do not. In many cases they loathe them beyond words, but cannot say so aloud.
Consider the Ancient Media attacks on Palin herself. Many of the attackers are male liberals who grew up in the 1960s. And right there you have the crux of the matter. Because 1960s male ‘hippies’ were among the most misogynist people who ever lived.
Oh, no! says our modern folklore. ‘Hippie’ boys loved and respected women! That was the start of the feminist movement!
Not so fast. The ‘hippie’ boys used women as sex objects. They abused them with drugs and sloth and personal filth – long, dirty hair, foul clothes, sexually-transmitted diseases and more. They ‘loved and respected’ women as long as the women were putting out sexually. Ultimately they exploited millions of “women” in every way. And they never gave it a second thought. Because in their own minds ‘hippie’ boys were the most important people in the world who deserved everything. Just like a classic liberal always is focused on himself.
Look at how “women” have been, and are treated by the rock-music culture that evolved in the 1960s. For decades, they have been treated like cheap pieces of meat to be cast off by the ‘stars’ when they are done with it.
Today, television is the same. The Parents Television Council, a non-partisan group advocating for responsible TV entertainment, recently issued a scathing report called Women in Peril: A Look at TV’s Disturbing New Storyline Trend. The report says that there has been ‘a significant increase in all forms of female victimization storylines; an increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims; an increase in the use of female victimization as a punch line in comedy series; and an increase in the depiction of intimate partner violence.’
And who controls the TV entertainment industry?
Liberals, that is who, many of whom came out of the 1960s.
PTC said that as of 2009:
‘Incidents of violence against women and teenage girls are increasing on television at rates that far exceed the overall increases in violence on television.’
‘Every network but ABC demonstrated a significant increase in the number of storylines that included violence against women between 2004 and 2009.’
‘Although female victims were primarily of adult age, collectively, there was a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims across all networks from 2004 to 2009.’
‘From 2004 to 2009 there was an 81% increase in incidences of intimate partner violence on television.’
Let’s take Bill Clinton as a sterling example of an abuser of women. Clinton would claim over and over that he is an enlightened 1960s liberal male who “respects” what he calls “women”. But he does not. We have seen instance after instance where Clinton abused every “woman” he ever met sexually, emotionally and physically, including his own wife. He even was accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. Who knows what other skeletons are in his closet. Probably dozens.
And look at the most famous liberal family of all, the Kennedys. They abused women routinely for decades. We will never know the real story, however.
Where does today’s abuse come from?
From the 1960s, that is where. From college campuses and rock concerts and drug abuse and self-indulgence. From human weakness and insecurity which caused the ‘hippie’ males to exert total control over women while claiming that somehow they respected them. Because despite its claims, liberalism is an ideology of weakness and uncertainty. Just look at Hollywood. They are all leftists – and all fragile as glass.
No wonder the feminist movement of the 1970s took root. Women were tired of being abused by males like Bill Clinton and all the rest of the “chauvinist pigs” who they were in regular contact with, who just happened to be… liberals.
What happened in the 1960s is being played out today with sky-high divorce rates, broken families, loneliness, social alienation and rampant homosexuality. Because the sexual license of the 1960s did not bring about ‘peace and love’ but it created anger between the sexes, driving the sexes apart. Millions of males and females today lost the ability to interact with members of the opposite sex because that relationship was reduced by 1960s behavior to just a physical one. And since then we have been told over and over that casual sex is just harmless fun.
It is not…
We were told that the 1960s was about “peace and love”. It was not. It was about pleasure-seeking and violence, anger and exploitation of females by male ‘hippies’ who were narcissists out for their own gratification. They passed “women” around like pieces of beef. One night here, one night there, forget about marriage or commitment, that was old fashioned. And if she got pregnant, well, then you arranged for an abortion. Or ran away and found another bed to sleep in.
Now we have the media attacks on Sarah Palin who is happily married, Christian, conservative values, five kids, optimistic. Could these attacks be simple jealousy, the most powerful emotion of all? Could Palin’s male media attackers be secretly in love with her like they were temporarily in love with all the women they abused – and lost – throughout the years? Could liberal media males secretly envy Palin because she is not like the beastly feminists that they are married to or work with? Because in the liberal household or workplace, the female rules and the male quietly suffers under her tyranny.
Could all the childless spinster feminists at Harvard and Salon.com be suffering an envious rage about Palin’s handsome husband and her wonderful family, which they missed out on in their climb to the top of the paper tower of liberalism?
And could the one-time ‘hippies’ be envious of Sarah Palin because she is the focus of so much public attention, which was the lifeblood of the narcissist 1960s?
The fact is that conservatives have for years been maligned as misogynist and anti-woman. But that is the opposite of the truth. If you know married conservative couples, they are always more loving and more respectful of each other than most liberal couples. Because in the liberal relationship, the sexes are not equal as feminism implies. The male submits, and this stokes his anger.
Liberals love to point to the Bible as an example of conservative male dominance. In St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, it says in Ephesians 5:22:
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.”
And libs love to select out this one quote as a symbol of male dominance. But they ignore the sentence before it which advises husband and wife:
“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
And the lines later which say:
“Husbands, love you wives as Christ loved the church… Even so, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.”
The 1960s taught males to exploit the female, not to love and respect her. Yet loving and respecting a woman is the highest form of reverence, and all other genuine equality flows from that, the equality you find in conservative relationships and that is absent from that of many liberals.
So which ideology is really the one that respects women?
The treatment of Sarah Palin explains a lot.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
For every rock star who had groupies
Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 11:55AM EST (link)making plaster casts of his member and for every Susie Sunshine being passed around by the guys at the Head Shop, there were millions and millions of Boomer Era males and females that had perfectly normal high school and college relationships that led to marriage and a family. Sex wasn’t discovered in the Nineteen Sixties, our parents must have known a little something about it; after all there were almost 80 million people born between 1946 and 1964. At the peak of the Boomer cohort in the early ’60s, there were almost 40 million teenagers in America, that in a nation of less than 200 million people total. Guess what teenagers are wont to do. Yep, you got it right; they experiment with sex and they always have.
What did change was the birth control pill and increasing numbers of women in the workplace. Between the time that Rosie the Riveter left her job in ’46 and the explosion of women into the workplace in the ’70s, the workplace was still largely a man’s place. The only women most men had much ongoing contact with were family members, perhaps neighbors, and a few close friends. Men with office and professional jobs had ongoing contact with secretaries and stewardesses – and that contact was enough to form plenty of legends and lead to not a few scandals and divorces. Throw in waitresses and hairdressers and you have all the sexual legends of the Fifties and early Sixties covered – and they were enough to make Hefner rich and famous.
The pill changed everything, but the vast majority of women couldn’t get the pill until they were 18 without having an uncomfortable conversation with their mother and family doctor – they still had both back then. So, huge numbers of young women with that little round plastic box on the nightstand or in their handbag became a part of the landscape beginning in the mid-sixties and thus began the age of sex without consequences. And it wasn’t just the guys who were sexually agressive. All those Susie Sunshines weren’t being raped and they weren’t being exploited by dirty hippie guys. They were girls just looking for a good time. Susie could and would say “no,” but she didn’t do it very often if it looked like fun.
There was exploitation, but it was teachers, college professors – especially, bosses, and sometimes cops or other authority figures. There was what today’s delicate sensibilities would call exploitation by men with money and power, but it isn’t like the girls didn’t volunteer for that “exploitation” and get some benefit from it.
Sexual exploitation in the workplace has never been as prevalent as the feminists would have us believe but it was plenty prevalent by the ’70s when millions of young women began to enter the workplace, and men and women that weren’t related to each other came into constant contact for the first time in our culture. That said, lots of Boomer aged guys, those dirty hippies you were talking about, who had been accustomed to Susie Sunshine’s favors found that they had been priced out and not a few of us have known resentment as we saw who got the promotions and why. Sometimes it was manipulation and seduction by the older and more powerful and well-off man, sometimes it was seduction by the woman, and sometimes it just happened. Stopping for drinks with the work gang or grabbing a late dinner after a long day with a workmate or with the boss planted the seeds of a lot of divorces in those days and the seventies were when the catchphrase “fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, fifty percent in death; you pick it” gained currency.
So, I seriously doubt that the influential Boomer-aged lefties got any more or less sex than anyone else similarly situated or that the women they came into contact with were much different from those everyone else came into contact with. Even in DC, for every short-haired, pursed lipped Ivy League educated feminist, there’s a dozen Dixie Darlin’s from Maryland and Virginia, and for a guy working in DC as a staffer or ‘crat, the odds are much better with the Secretary from over in VA than with the Assistant Deputy to the Deputy Assistant from MA. Even lefty men are practical creatures.
No the reason Lefties generally, and not just the men, hate Sarah Palin is the same reason they hate Clarence Thomas; neither are what their world view says they should be. To a Lefty Sonya Sotomeyor is what a woman is supposed to be, Sarah Palin is not and Barack Obama is what a Black man is supposed to be, Clarence Thomas is not. That whack-job female professor that said Palin wasn’t a woman was speaking from her inner core. There is a great intellectual and cultural divide in this Country but it isn’t based on who was and wasn’t getting laid in the Sixties.
In Vino Veritas
That said, Art, Palin needs to quit going on about the Press
Section9 Monday, November 23rd at 3:08PM EST (link)I like Palin, always have.
I support the hell out of her because she knows how to fight Obama and take the fight to him and his machine. That resonates with rank and file Republicans, not just the Elmer Gantry crowd.
However, you can only go on making distinctions about the Press for so long before it comes across as whining. Using the Press as a pinata has a relative short life in this country because there are different kinds of press in this country. Not every paper in this country is the New York Times or the Anchorage Daily Worker.
Yeah, the media hates her because it’s made up, predominately, of people who are on the other side of the cultural divide. The staff of the Daily Worker or MSNBC tend not to attend Assemblies of God Churches.
She’s got the base. She needs to reach past that. Beating up on the press won’t help her past, say, Thanksgiving.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”-Winston Churchill
She should take a lesson from Reagan and mock the Press,
Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 3:16PM EST (link)but it really isn’t much in her character. They anger her and when she gets angry, she lashes out or plots revenge. Sarah Palin can hold a grudge!
In Vino Veritas
I don't hold with the comparisons to Reagan.
Section9 Monday, November 23rd at 3:49PM EST (link)Reagan understood how to mock and talk past the news media and his enemies.
Palin is much more like Truman. I know you’ve been around her for a long time, and if there’s one thing I’ve picked about her, is that, like Harry, she likes the fight.
Give her that much if nothing else-unlike Bush, she hits back. Her problem is that it may be easy to bait her that way. Conservatives were frustrated for years by the Bush family’s inattentiveness to their opponents. They don’t have to worry about that with Palin-she attacks all the time.
That can make it somewhat hard to govern, however. which is something I’ve gleaned from your writings.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”-Winston Churchill
Not a comparison, just a suggestion. nt
Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 8:03PM EST (link)In Vino Veritas
Great comparison.
hbgconservative Monday, November 23rd at 9:29PM EST (link)I do think she is like Reagan in one regard: she doesn’t let lib media get to her. She keeps talking about what she wants to talk about and definitely doesn’t care what they think.
Lefties are misogynists
redneck_hippie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 4:17PM EST (link)because of their primitive amoral mindset. The violence of pop culture is a symptom of our cultural and moral decline. It requires morality for a male in a dominant position to eschew exploiting others, including women. A strong male wants an equal partner, especially in his intimate relationships. Unfortunately cultural mores historically have reinforced the “weaker sex” meme.
As another poster said elsewhere. the Hate Palin thing is due to what Palin represents. The misogyny will be part of that, as it was in the democrat 2008 presidential primary. Democrat versus democrat misogyny showed equality of the sexes to be a fabrication when political power was at stake. The left in that situation were forced to choose whiich graven image to shove to the top of the mountain. Hillary wasn’t as shiny and new, and had less sex appeal, so she had to be smashed in order to absolve our nation of its racism. Idolatry is like that.
Our society must return to one where the family is the classroom for inculcating our traditional values and the history of our founding. If we cannot recreate this stepping-off point for citizenship for our children, we will be enslaved and drown in the fear and loathing the left has bequeathed to us.
On misogyny and Ms. Palin. It is there because of what I say above, but the gasoline that is being poured onto the bonfire is the fact that she has such a worshipful following. We know where that phenomenon got us a year ago. So do the leftists.
(kowalski'ing) Recommended for discussion
redneck_hippie (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 8:11PM EST (link)purposes.
What I am looking for here is for us to step away from the botting and do some self-examination which may or may not be of benefit.
Well, what say you?
I read most of "Sarah From Alaska" today.
Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 8:09PM EST (link)SWMBO had to make the Costco run and I was designated beast of burden; she doesn’t shop, she grazes in stores, so I had plenty of time for a good scan. I thought it was pretty well written and it mostly comports with my observations of the things that happened here. Some of you really, really, really won’t like it.
In Vino Veritas
You Mean It Didn't Burn Your Eyes?!
IJB Monday, November 23rd at 8:12PM EST (link)[It burns! It burns!! heh heh]
I’d actually be curious to see a diary on your thoughts on the subject.
I’m not sure I’d agree with all of it. But I’d sure like to read it!
Hey, I've even read most of "Going Rogue."
Achance (Diary) Monday, November 23rd at 8:31PM EST (link)Unlike many here, I’m not afraid of things I don’t like. In fact, if I don’t like something, I usually try to learn all I can about it.
As I said, I read it standing around in Costco, saved $17 by not buying it. i don’t have it here to go through to quote and reference the way you would a proper review. I had an hour or so with it and am a very fast reader. I went to parts about things I know about and I found the writers both thorough and non-judgemental except they did seem to be a bit exercised about the way she treated them in the waning days of her last Legislative session when they were here in Juneau doing research. Lots of people had noticed that Gov. Palin had gotten waaay into paranoid by then. Parts I read about things I had direct knowlege of pretty well matched up with my observations.
In Vino Veritas