3M: Myths, Massachusetts and Michelle

Michelle Obama raised two lovely daughters, so naturally that qualifies her to opine about raising boys.

“It’s powerful to have strong men but what does that strength mean?” asked Obama. “Does it mean respect? Does it mean responsibility? Does it mean compassion? Or are we protecting our men too much so that they feel a little entitled and a little, you know, self-righteous sometimes?”

“And that’s kind of on us, too, as women and mothers,” Obama added, “as we nurture men and push girls to be perfect.”

What does that “strength mean”? Better question is what does any of that mean*, as it’s a string of words that suggests most of us have grossly overestimated Michelle Obama’s ability to be cogent. Since a guy is a misogynist if he points out that a woman is irrational, women get away with being irrational because no one can say so. Except someone who doesn’t care about being called names. This makes no sense at all.

“We have to raise our children to be people.”

As opposed to doorknobs? And this is what passes for deep thought from a former First Lady. Thanks a lot. In the good old days, there was an expression that “the grass is always greener on the other side,” meaning that we had the capacity to appreciate our own difficulties, but others were living wonderful, fabulous lives while we struggled.

In this age of sadness for the women being raised by their mothers to be handmaidens, Massachusetts has decided that it’s not going to take it anymore. No, not just Senator Liz Warren, who alleges she was traumatized by being chased around a Harvard desk by a dirty old man with very poor eyesight, and who has now chosen to throw her special angel under the bus.

The Mass Senate has unanimously approved a bill to “fix” the outrage of the Secretary of Education, Betsy De Vos’, undoing of the mechanism to assure the entitled males on campus are punished. It includes such gems as:

“Trauma-informed response”, a response involving an understanding of the complexities of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking through training centered on the neurobiological impact of trauma, the influence of societal myths and stereotypes surrounding the causes and impacts of trauma, understanding the behavior of perpetrators and conducting an effective investigation.

And this bill requires colleges to allow anonymous reporting, because requiring accusers to come forward is, itself, traumatic. Buried within this paragraph are two things worthy of particular note, “societal myths and stereotypes.” What these reflect are legislative efforts to codify that the sun rises in the west and the earth is flat as a pancake.

The Age of Enlightenment is how we now refer to a time when dogma and ideology gave way to facts. They were so naive back then. Today, gender-studies and critical-theory doc create faux scholarship to back up their ideological positions, thereby reducing reality to proclaimed myths. As for stereotypes, they just magically appear. It’s not as if stereotypes are the organic product of reality and tend to be true. Which is why they’re stereotypes.

None of this, of course, comes as much of a surprise. But as this dogma winds its way into law, beyond the transitory nonsense that women like Michelle are spewing, it goes beyond the silencing of wrongthink, the cries of “toxic masculinity,” the claims that good men should be women. We are creating a legal Dark Ages where today’s dogma becomes tomorrow’s crimes.

There are four camps out there watching this happen. One camp is applauding, as this serves their interests, aligns with their feelz and creates the world that serves their self-interest. Another camp feels just the opposite, for its own selfish reasons. But there are two camps between the two. Both share the recognition that this is merely ideology run amok. Neither is misled by the cries of “myths” and “stereotypes.” Both wish the unduly passionate would crawl back under their rocks.

But what distinguishes the two camps is that one lacks the will to confront the mob. They pray that the insanity will end, but they have no intention of saying so aloud, lest they become the hated targets of the insipid but passionate children of the twitters. The other shrugs, refusing to moderate their words to avoid becoming targets of the slings and arrows of the unduly passionate. They can throw all the pebbles they want at them. They’ll survive.

Indeed, this last camp will use words that may offend to save them from being lost to the lexicon. They won’t indulge those who call facts “myth.” They can be provocative, even deliberately so, because acquiescence allows the lies to fester, to metastasize.

This isn’t new. We watched this happen with the War on Drugs, among others, where myths were codified into legal reality. We’re watching it again. And just as there was a group back then who refused to fold in the face of the Crack Epidemic, they refuse to cave in to the Massachusetts Senate’s legislation of “societal myths and stereotypes.”

Has Saint Michelle’s halo started to tarnish? In the current political climate, it’s almost impossible to challenge the good wife, and so her words are sacrosanct. But like the War on Drugs, eventually we will come to our senses, realize the wrongfulness our hysteria allowed, and then struggle to figure out how to undo the damage we created.

Or we can believe in the myth and applaud the new legal Dark Age. Surely we can fix the damage later, when we return to our senses. It’s not like lives will be ruined in the process. But even if they are, they’ll be male lives because men are so entitled with their toxic masculinity. Right, Michelle?

*Note that Mrs. Obama referred to males as “men” and females as “girls.”

15 thoughts on “3M: Myths, Massachusetts and Michelle

    1. SHG Post author

      I thought of that as I was doing the post. Was it wrong to attribute to a man that which a women did? Typical male fragility, right?

      1. B. McLeod

        When I think about it, it seems very foreseeable there will also be occasions where multiple people say “girls” (justifying a “THEY” gif) and of course, multiple “pronouns of choice” are probably going to be forced on lawyers eventually. So the “HE SAID GIRLS!!!” gif will then only be useful in isolated cases (assuming we will even be allowed to continue using “he” at all). It would actually make the most sense to have one that just says “GIRLS!!!” Then you would be set with an appropriate gif no matter WHO says “girls.” (It would work even if a Russian bot said “girls,” in the course of trying to sow discord).

          1. Mario Machado

            I’m beaming with pride. Or, as you said one time after my momma commented on a FL post of mine, “I’m kvelling.”

            I always knew you’d come around to the Crue.

    2. boysboysboys

      Why? surely the “He” refers to our esteemed host, the Gif is a preemptive strike against his critics – the problem is not the word itself but the speaker.
      They hate him for his freedom of speech.

  1. Billy Bob

    Say you are not dumping on our famous [Ma$$achu$ett$] future Prez, from the birthplace of Amerikan democracy, the once and famous P0cah0ntas? Paul Revere is watching over us. Today’s revelations and Donna B’s book of tell-all
    shenanigans at the DNC place her a step up in the race. Trust it! The Orange Man is down for the count. Mueller “The Mule” is not going away. Everything gets worse from hear me now. The Dems come back from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the so-called Clint0n Dynasty (“vast right-wing conspiracy”, harumph!). They are HiStory; they always were, but nobody called them out,… except Newt “The Fruit” Gingrich (who stole Christmas, more than once.)

    For an encore, you could post the “That-is-not-Funny” Lady. She is the best. She is for Liz Warren, trust it.
    And so are we, being from, ahem, Ma$$-a-chu-sett$. We did not win the World Series, but so what? We’re still t he best in the East. We don’t care what anyone sez, certainly not in Nu Yawk.

  2. Nigel Declan

    I fail to see the problem. I have never planted or grown turnips, but why should that prevent me from embarking on my whirlwind tour of North America explaining how coddling root vegetables has resulted in them becoming transphobic?

    1. Billy Bob

      Thanx for clearing that up, Nigel. We really don’t care whether you have ever planted or grown turnips! What concerns us most is whether you have fallen off the Turnip Truck–or have ever fallen off same–in which case, we may be forced/required to report you to the authorities. You may be subject to seven days psychiatric observation against your will–and a *small* fine– if the judge magistrate rules the likelihood of mental incompetence and/or subsequent malfeasance more likely than not, with a *preponderance* of the evidence. Ha.

      Incidentally, both turnips and beets are presently highly under-rated veges. There exist many imaginative ways to prepare them so as to make them more appetizing than one might think. CookBooks and Celebrity Chefs R Us! As for a “whirlwind tour of No. Amerika,” save yer shekels. You ain’t missing much. Stay put. No matter where you go, there you are?~? Remember Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz. No, we’re not in Kansas anymore, thank god.

      “Transphobic”,… now you’ve crossed the line. Veges becoming transphobic,… wish I’d thought of that? On second thought, noooo!

Comments are closed.