White Women Can’t Jump

Maine Senator Susan Collins explained her reason for voting to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a 45 minute speech. Some will find her reasons sufficient, perhaps even persuasive. Some will not. But then, there are some for whom reasons have nothing to do with it. This matters.

One can discuss and debate with people who are working in the same world of facts and logic as others. One cannot engage in any productive discussion with a person whose grasp of the world is constrained by their irrational beliefs, as they can’t see any world except the one stuck in their delusion. Or as Alexis Grenell describes it, her “stupid uterus.

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Her imagery is vivid, like the nightmares of the insane. She doesn’t represent women, even though she makes quite clear that “no true woman” would do as Susan Collins did.

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.

They “probably” do everything Grennell finds absolutely horrifying and exhausting, because there can be no possible woman who wouldn’t do as Grennell would demand they do. Collins didn’t. Women who supported Kavanaugh didn’t. They are gender traitors, supplicants to the Patriarchy, because what other explanation could there be for women to be so wrong?

But these women have one additional attribute, which explains their being evil.

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades.

On another day, I might be critical of the New York Times for using its real estate to air idiocy, or worse, flagrantly false and scientifically unsound positions, but only when they further a particular goal that would otherwise stand in stark contrast with reality.

This time, it’s appreciated, though not likely for the reason they published it. I’m not the intended audience for this blood-letting of emotion, but then, I only get to see snippets of the insanity of a world view attributing all outcomes to racism and sexism.

Most rational and moderately sane people have the capacity to see the merit of other views. The irrational do not. They know what they feel, and there are no facts, no logic, no reasons, that can change that. Rational people turn away from the irrational because of this, there being no purpose in engaging with someone whose view of the world is grounded in self-serving fantasy.

But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.

In the scheme of equality, women have agency, the ability to make their own decisions, to reason for themselves, to reach conclusions that, to them, are correct. In the scheme of social justice, there can be no conclusion but theirs. Solidarity means no women can disagree with them except traitors to the cause, handmaidens to the Patriarchy. Grenell says they “scare” her, but this isn’t the real emotion she’s feeling. She despises them. They pray to the wrong god. She hates them for not backing her god.

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

This is about as clear an explanation of how the world looks through a progressive lens as possible. It provides a clear vision of a mind lost to insanity, one so mired in an irrational belief system that everything comes down to race and gender. White males are evil for obvious reasons. White women take a little more explanation, since they should cry for the pain of their sisters because shouldn’t all women believe in the one true god?

Susan Collins couldn’t possibly have made a decision for the reasons she spent 45 minutes explaining. Perhaps she didn’t. Who knows what’s really inside another person’s head? Well, Grenell knows.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.

The unduly passionate may respond, but there is racism, there is sexism, and that, of course, is true. But that doesn’t make every act, every thought, every word, every breath, all about racism and sexism, unless you’ve lost touch the reality.

I’m told that I’m not allowed to call a woman irrational because men have used the “nuts and sluts” argument to oppress woman for millennia. So what word is permissible to describe irrationality when it’s spewed by a woman? This is a litmus test between the liberal and progressive view of the world. A liberal believes in equality, which means we can all be as good or as bad, as rational or irrational, as we are, and that neither race nor gender makes a person better or worse. The progressive view is that identities control.

Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her mostly male colleagues applauded her.

The question for white women in November is: Which one of these two women are you?

And indeed, it’s a good question. Will you be a rational person or will your “rage headache” prevent you from hearing any words that challenge your hatred? Thank you, New York Times, for making the options as clear as possible by publishing this manifesto of irrationality. As much as we may not share conservative values, the alternative of progressive irrationality and hatred offers no option either.

If there is to be an alternative to Trump, to conservatives, it will not come from screaming “racist and sexist” at everyone who disagrees with you because your stupid uterus tells you to.

25 thoughts on “White Women Can’t Jump

  1. Hunting Guy

    Felix Torres.

    “We are in the midst of what Asimov termed a SELDON CRISIS, with internal strife blinding us to the bigger external threat.

    The culture wars will continue until either the system collapses or an external threat (Russia/China/both) refocuses the country. And there is no guarantee which will come to pass.”

    Reply
  2. Steve Brecher

    The link in the second para. is to Grenell’s CV on Columbia’s site. Might it be intended to be a link to her NYT opinion piece?

    Reply
  3. Appellate Squawk

    Before the 19th Amendment was passed, the medical argument for denying women the vote was that blood going to the brain was diverted to the uterus. Making them too intellectually deficient and physically delicate to manage rational thought.
    A woman declaring herself unable to hear Senator Collins speaking about “due process and some other nonsense” because of “my rage headache” so perfectly fits that theory that we suspect a hoax. Probably written by Ben Shapiro.
    Otherwise, the authoress should take two aspirin and read the transcript.

    Reply
    1. Richard Parker

      “Before the 19th Amendment was passed, the medical argument for denying women the vote …”

      Before the 19th Amendment passed women could vote for President in 23 states. Only one state (Florida) had no voting rights at all for women. The remaining states were a mixture of limited franchises for women.

      The 19th Amendment passed because the issue was already decided. It passed to beat a handful of states into the 20th century.

      Reply
  4. Mark Brooks

    Mr. Greenfield, as I started to read this blog, the first thing that came to mind was this. You need to be on the beach in Jamaica, reclining on a lounge chair while sipping a cold Red Stripe.

    My grandmother (paternal), due to circumstances, did not have much formal education. But she was gifted with common sense and did not suffer fools gladly. When I finished reading the blog, one of her sayings came to mind. I can hear her saying, “This Grenell person must either be incompetent or in league”.

    Not knowing anything about Grenell, I did a quick web search and found 1) she is a white woman and 2) according to her website, she and another person has “decades of experience shaping public agendas and advancing causes for both public sector and private sector clients.Together they’ve utilized their expertise in policy, politics and press to win major victories for candidates and causes in New York and beyond”. So the answer is clear, she is “in league”. A hired propagandist.

    So nothing you say is going to matter much to her, as it would appear that she could be hired to promote that the “moon is made of cheese”. That the NYT is happy to print as an opinion piece and not as paid advertisement, something best described as propaganda, is another story.

    When the Blasey Ford story broke, one of the cable movie channels (I think it was Showtime) was showing the movie “Marshall”. Naturally I watched it, but noted it was quickly withdrawn from viewing soon after. This was about Thurgood Marshall and ” focused on one of the first cases of his career, the State of Connecticut v. Joseph Spell. This was a 1940 legal case in which an African-American chauffeur was accused of raping the wealthy white woman who was his boss, Eleanor Strubing. After 17 hours of questioning, Spell confessed to being intimate with her, but (contrary to police accounts) said that he had never confessed to raping her. After his accuser was cross-examined and contradictions in her story exposed, Spell was acquitted.” (note I have cut and pasted this info from Wikipedia, but it is accurate )

    I wondered if it would be worthwhile sending a copy to Grenell ? But as she is a propagandist, it wouldn’t make any difference.

    There is also another possibility. As Grenell is used to winning “major victories for candidates and causes” and she did not deliver on this one, maybe she is just venting her frustrations. But this could be deemed to be sexist.

    Cheers
    Mark Brooks

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      We’ve been in a “post-fact” world for a while here, so it’s unlikely there would be any circumstances under which the message would get through. As for Grenell being “in league,” I suspect her cause and propaganda aligned well here.

      Reply
      1. Mark Brooks

        As you are in NY City and “closer to the action”, you undoubtedly have much better knowledge of Grenell than I would. Perhaps I should then suggest she is “incompetent and in league”? Anyways I find it very dangerous when a person actually believes their own propaganda. With such persons, the concept of reason does not exist.

        Cheers
        Mark

        Reply
  5. Troutwaxer

    I think the whole Kavanaugh issue is badly misunderstood. The question should not be a “partisan argument” or “feminists vs. Republicans,” but “this is a job interview.”

    If I hear that a candidate possibly has drinking problems, possibly treats women badly, and has gambling debts that somehow just “disappeared,” plus I can’t see his work product on issues like torture and know that he was responsible for flaky stuff like “the Clintons killed Vince Foster,” maybe I don’t want to hire the guy; not on account of partisan issues, but because the risks outweigh the potential benefits.

    If The President wants a very conservative jurist, there are plenty of those who don’t have Kavanaugh’s problems/history and could have been voted into a Supreme Court post with minimal fuss.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      Don’t let the topic of the post stop you from saying something completely off-topic. No really, it’s all about you and whatever utterly moronic shit pops into your head, no matter what the post is about.

      Reply
      1. Troutwaxer

        Put less politely, my point is that by playing into the “partisan” aspects of the whole thing, you’re focusing on side issues and making people stupider. It’s definitely true that some of the Feminists are SJWs and/or hired guns, and what they say doesn’t always make sense, but ultimately… it’s a fucking job interview.

        If you pretend that it’s something other than a very public, high-level job interview, and that it should be judged on that basis, you’re killing brain cells (and not impressing me at all, BTW – you usually do better work than this.)

        Reply
        1. SHG Post author

          I’m not impressing you and making people stupider? Then why are you here? I can fix that for you. You’re welcome. Poof.

          Reply
        2. Miles

          The “criminal trial” v. “job interview” analogies were both inapt, but red meat to each sides’ base. After all, who else would be stupid enough not to realize?

          Reply
    2. KP

      “”If The President wants a very conservative jurist, there are plenty of those who don’t have Kavanaugh’s problems/history and could have been voted into a Supreme Court post with minimal fuss.””

      Not right anyway- Kavanaugh was fine unitil he wasn’t. Anyone put up with the same views would find half a dozen women accusing him of the same stuff. This was not about the person.

      Reply
  6. Ross

    I’m not sure which is more worrying, a policy “expert” that has rage headaches that cloud her mind, or a policy “expert” that listens to a talking uterus. The combination of the two appears to produce some fantasies that are Lewis Carroll like in their bizarreness.

    Reply
  7. B. McLeod

    Which of Kavanaugh’s accusers were not white women? It seems to me that the demographic being generally blamed encompasses every one of the known accusers.

    Reply
  8. Lee

    “. . . my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.”

    The irony! Men have often been accused of thinking with ” their other head.”

    I guess we are all victims of our genitalia and just can’t help ourselves when we act irrationally.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. Anyone using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly will be ridiculed. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.