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.”