No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘Misogyny

The privilege of wealth

Some time ago a longtime, regular Leftist blog commentator, “Sanctuary“, dismissed a Chris Trotter blog post by saying that he now understood why so many on the Left regarded Trotter as a man whose time had passed.

I don’t think that’s the case but Trotter certainly suffers increasingly from incoherence.

In one post he’ll blast the Identity Politics and Woke-fest obsessions of the modern Left, lamenting about how the Working Classes are being ignored and the Class War is being lost, see Why We (Don’t) Fight.

Then in another post he’ll gloat about the same thing, Go Woke – Or Go Politically Broke:

By alienating corporate capitalism and making bitter enemies of the mainstream media and universities, the Trumpists are, if they only knew it, corralling their followers into a socio-economic and cultural dead-end.

By shutting themselves out of liberal capitalism’s Emerald City, Trump’s poorly educated munchkins are slamming the door on their own and their children’s best chance for a happy and prosperous future.

In that post he also demonstrated that he should never write about the USA, where a simple-minded repeating of Democrat Party talking points is not sufficient to debate.

You would think that somebody buried in the Old Left would be able to see the obvious, and sometimes Chris does, but not here. For that we have to turn to historian Victor Davis Hanson, writing from deep inside the supposed future of the USA (and the world?), California, who nails the points that Leftists should automatically understand, Wealthy and Woke:

The most privileged CEOs of corporate America—those who sell us everything from soft drinks and sneakers, to professional sports and social media—now jabber to America about its racism, sexism, and assorted sins. The rules of cynical CEO censure are transparent. 

First, the corporation never harangues unless it feels it has more to lose—whether by boycotts, protests, or bad publicity—than it stands to gain in staying neutral and silent. 

Second, class concerns are never mentioned. Bastian is paid about $65,000 for each working day of the year. In a sane world, he might seem a ridiculous voice of the oppressed. 

Third, CEOs never fear offending the conservative silent majority, who are assumed not to boycott or protest.

But it goes further than simple fear and #MeTooism at the corporate executive and Board level. This trait of being lectured about your sins by very privileged people runs across the USA now:

The woke revolution is not a grassroots movement. It is powered by a well-connected and guilt-ridden elite. Yet the religion of Wokeness assumes these high priests deserve exemptions. Their wealth, credentials, contacts, and power ensure none are ever subject to the consequences of their own sermons.

Self-righteous elites rant about carbon footprints, needless border security, defunding the police, gun control, and charter schools. But they rarely forgo their own private jets, third and fourth homes, estate walls, armed security guards, and prep schools. Apparently to rant about “privilege” means the less you need to worry about your own. 

He lists them specifically, demonstrating that “across the USA” is no figure of speech:

Multimillion-dollar NBA stars blast America’s “systemic racism.” They utter not a word about Chinese communist reeducation camps, the destruction of Tibetan culture, or the strangulation of Hong Kong’s democracy. 

Tenured administrators and university presidents pulling down seven-figure salaries are far more likely to virtue signal their universities’ “racism” than are untenured, poorly paid, and part-time lecturers.

The woke media? Its clergy are elite network newsreaders, not so much reporters on the beat. 

The richest in America—the families who own and operate Amazon, Apple, Bloomberg, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft—are the most likely to voice their derision for its unwoke lower- and middle-classes. 

Ditto the multimillionaires of politics—an Al Gore, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi.

The richest celebrity billionaires such as Jay-Z, George Lucas, Paul McCartney, or Oprah Winfrey weigh in a lot about the oppression of a supposedly rigged system they mastered, rarely about the plight of the less-well paid in their own professions.

Even the military are not immune…

The retired and current military who lecture us on the evils of Trump or promise to ferret out “insurrectionists” among the ranks are mostly generals and admirals—and some retired top-brass multimillionaires.

We don’t hear privates, corporals, sergeants, and majors pushing through subsidies for transgendered surgeries or petitions to garrison a quiet Washington with barbed wire and national guardsmen.

Well, there is a reason why the latter created the phrase, “Perfumed Princes” during the Vietnam War.

Wokeness is an insurance policy. The louder the damnation of American culture, the more likely a career will be saved or enhanced.

Wokeness is classist and elitist. Those who made or inherited a fortune, got the right degree at the right place, made CEO or four-star rank, live in the right ZIP code, or know the good people, believe they have earned the right to decide what is moral for their inferiors. 

It is all these things, but I think Hanson comes closest with the following comment:

So wokeness is medieval. Sin is not given up as much as atoned for—and excused—through loud confessionals.

[It] is not really about fairness for minorities, the oppressed, and the poor, past or present. It is mostly a self-confessional cult of anointed bullies, and hypocrites of all races and genders, who seek to flex, and increase, their own privilege and power.

Wealth has always been the ultimate privilege, more so than ever nowadays in social circles created by none other than the modern Left. Ultimately this is what the likes of Trotter struggle with, but at least he still struggles. Most Western Left-wing parties caved in to this reality some time ago.


Written by Tom Hunter

April 10, 2021 at 1:12 pm

The Patriarchy Must Be Smashed

And it looks like it’s well on the way to being so, given these interesting stats out of the USA. I’d love to know how New Zealand compares in many of these categories.

One more generation should see large numbers of these well-educated female graduates rising to high levels of private and public sector power. Not to mention the ever-increasing rise of service industries that reward so-called inherent female capabilities in language and social skills. It’s hard to see these numbers being defeated for much longer by the much-discussed glass ceiling.
.
But there are two other big issues about all this.
.
First is the data in the bottom half of the table, which show incredibly disproportionate numbers of men with learning disabilities, plus other terrible numbers showing the likely links to resulting poor or failed education outcomes.
.
Not Hypergamy
The data also suggests how this, in-turn, leads to the worlds of unemployment or low-skill/low-wage jobs, together with alcohol and drug problems and suicide. And of course prison. It also seems to show the results of men doing very dangerous things, including physically dangerous jobs.

I’ve seen arguments that this is also a result of the patriarchy.

Second, what does this mean for the future as the effects of hypergamy kick in – woman seeking as a permanent mate only those males that match or exceed her status – whether measured by social standing, wealth, simple income or some combination thereof.

Kathy Ireland in the 80’s

It’s an old joke that one does not see Supermodels dating plumbers.

Looks clean enough!

 

But you don’t see many high-powered, corporate lawyers dating plumbers either – yes, the implied male/female gap in each profession itself is also reality – and this “dating gap” is becoming more obvious with time and seeming to grow, as the proportion of “high status” woman increases.

Naturally the Grundian dismisses this and looks forward to a future where superior humans overcome evolutionary wiring, along with some very sweet anecdotes that don’t really seem to deny the statistical trends or the complaints of both men and women who are single:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Kathy Ireland today – $350 million est. worth

“In the US, among people aged 22-29 who do not have a college degree, there are 9.4 million single men, versus 7.1 million single women. So the dating world is just as hard for those blue collar guys. But the reality is that we don’t talk about their dating challenges the same way we talk about the challenges faced by educated women. One of my bits of advice in the book is that I think we all need to open our hearts and minds to dating across socioeconomic lines.”

Ummmm – I hate to “mansplain” this, but outside of royalty and the snotty families of the richest 1%, men have never had any problems with dating scross socioeconomic lines because all they cared about was having sex with good looking woman who could bear them children (evolution again). Woman have always had different goals in seeking a suitable mate and while that’s always been tough the increased education/wealth/income status of woman has begun to crash into those primeval goals and “dating down“. There’s also the advent of Tinder and the like, which enable men to have almost as much sex as they want without even the ties of a steady relationship, let alone partnership, marriage and kids.

Still, this evolving situation may resolve a number of issues with our societies, including those physical jobs that are killing men by the bucket load compared to women, as described by “feminist killjoy” Josefin Hedlund:

In the West there is strong belief in the idea of ‘free love’ and people ‘marrying for love’, as opposed to for any other reason. But when you start examining class, privilege, gender, sexual, and other identities in relationships they look remarkably like ‘arranged marriages’.

If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well’, successful (by society’s standards), cisgender, normatively beautiful, slim people, from class privileged backgrounds, then you are also upholding violent norms. This means that you cannot just declare that who you are attracted to is a personal preference. You can’t just get away with saying ‘that’s not my type’ (unless your non-type is cis-white-hetero-male, they receive enough admiration in society anyway, so lets de-centre that!)

Love can be a revolutionary force to challenge norms, promote feminist practice, and to reject capitalism.

And you thought the likes of Josefin were just misandrists.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 24, 2020 at 6:00 pm