Liberals Have Nothing But Contempt for Women

Forgive me if I’m confused, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between what our would-be elite overlords are telling us about women and what they actually think. Apparently coherence and consistency are sexist, and probably also racist and homophobic, making the pooh-bahs of the establishment and their media gimps the most tolerant people in the world.

So, Hillary has some serious sads because Trump interrupted her in the debates. That’s sexist you know, because women are both just as good and tough and stuff as men and, simultaneously, little delicate flowers that we must treat like fine china. Apparently you go go go gurl until someone is mean to you and then you run run run gurl to the menfolk in the media to protect you. You can be anything you want to be except as tough and capable as a man, right Hillary?

You pathetic hack. I expect your vapid supporters, to the extent they actually consider things beyond your mind-numbing clichés, probably expect your whining about sexism is going to make Putin pause. But those of us who actually reside on this planet know that the bullies of the world have already got your number – it’s 33,000, as in the emails they have of yours they have that you tried to Bleach Bit into oblivion. They see you as weak because you are weak. You’re frail and you’re stupid and you allowed yourself to be humiliated by that dank bro clown of a husband in front of the entire world.

Respect? You haven’t earned it, you bizarre robot. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher whimpering like you do? She was the Iron Lady; you’re the Grinning Hummel, a neurotic first wife who would be whining to some therapist if she didn’t have the media oiled-up and at her creepy service.

So the next freakout du jour involves Trump calling out some chunky, homicidal ex-Miss Universe, whose entire job was supposed to be not getting chunky during her reign, for getting chunky during her reign. So wait, we can’t hold women to the same standards as men? Her job was to be thin. She didn’t do it. Oh no, her boss pointed out that this woman had failed the one thing she committed to do, and he’s the villain?

There’s another organization that fat shames people for failing to meet their commitment to stay within weight standards – the military. Why do you hate our troops, Hillary? Oh right, you’re a liberal. Anyway, do women need an exception there too, Hillary? Sergeant Hester didn’t need special treatment, but then she wasn’t some gender studies major intent on getting ahead through grievance mongering instead of actual achievement.

Why do liberals have such low expectations for women? Oh right, because their pro-woman agenda is as phony as their global warming scam. They’re the hippie in Forrest Gump, smacking around the heroine and blaming it on LBJ. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick.

But will people see it that way? The sad fact is that some people love cultivating fake sexism as a bludgeon to beat on their opponents. That’s the Democrat way – try to turn opposition into immorality. And among a certain part of the population, it will work – those are the people who were perfectly happy while Bill Clinton treated his succession of women like trash and Hillary came behind with a garbage pail and a push broom. Broken, shattered women are collateral damage in their struggle, a struggle that is most assuredly not for equality but about something else – unaccountable supremacy. Hillary and her ilk are saying precisely the opposite of “Women are just as good as men,” which some suckers still think is the point of liberal feminism. What they are saying is “Women are whatever we need them to be at the moment, and the second they stop being useful we’ll wad them up and throw them away.”

How do the women feel who don’t whimper when challenged, who don’t run for some man to protect them, who respond to interruptions and rudeness with toughness and firmness instead of pathetic fussiness? I don’t know – I don’t presume to speak for women, unlike liberals, but I can’t imagine they are impressed. Toughness – the ability to fight on any battlefield against any foe without backing down – isn’t a male or female characteristic. It’s a characteristic of leaders. And Hillary sure as hell has shown that she’s anything but a leader.

Hillary is truly the reductio ad absurdum of politics (unfortunately, presidential politics).

She is...nothing. She has...nothing. She espouses...nothing. She says...nothing. She represents...nothing.

Yes, she’s a leftist 100x times as Orwellian as Obama, mostly due to her lengthy head start. She’s angry at her husband and in turn the nation, she’s angry at those who view her for what she truly is, she’s angry she had to wait this long after the Apex Token stole the spotlight, and she’s angry that anyone might object to her cakewalking back into the White House.

But Hillary and the press (one and the same for the purposes of this discussion) are attempting to run a campaign about a Seinfeldian (TM) Nothing. There are slogans that mean nothing. Speeches that mean nothing (except those given in secret to Wall Street banks). You have to laugh and shake your head when it’s announced Hillary is giving a ‘policy speech’ yet not a single person, not even Hillary herself, can state what the policy is before or after. There are ‘policy papers’ on her web site. Wheeeee. I’m sure she spent as much time on them as she did her book with Tim Kaine ie she’s never seen them.

The media are essentially promoting and defending a black box. Hillary could be Jane Doe to them, as long as she is female and a Democrat. Obviously they have an irrational hatred of Trump but mostly because Trump is The Other. If Lincoln or Washington were running on the GOP ticket I imagine the invective would be largely the same.

Both sides seem strangely intent on ignoring rally turnout in favor of polls - partially because polls allow lazy DC swamp denizens to sit on their backsides and write columns rather than visit that icky flyover country. It also conveniently allows them to forget all they said about voter enthusiasm in 2008 and 2012 for Obama since, quite obviously, Trump has 90% of this enthusiasm. To be fair, anyone representing a break from Obama’s slide into bleak, grey authoritarianism would be viewed enthusiastically but Trump is not a glass-jawed Dole/McCain/Romney type almost begging to be knocked out so the expectations are quite different.

Back to Hillary and the press: she and they both claim they want to get back to a campaign of the issues and they will...any minute now. But all concerned know there are no issues beyond a continuation of Obama’s ruin and the lies to cover it up so none will be forthcoming prior to Nov 8.

Hillary represents nobody but herself, not even the media who promote her and slash at her opponent. If it’s possible, she is more of an egomaniac than Obama since at least Obama had willing supporters shouting his praises rather than the sad sacks (including Bill Clinton) who are dragooned into attempting to say vaguely positive things about her.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.