Posted on 10/26/2024 10:42:04 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Usually, I get political wisdom from Rahm Emanuel, not his brother Ari.
But a quote from Ari, the Hollywood macher, to Puck’s Matthew Belloni about the gender chasm in 2024 caught my eye.
“This election is gonna come down to probably 120,000 votes,” Ari said. “You probably have 60 percent of the male vote for Trump, and the female vote is 60-40 for Kamala. It’s a jump ball. We’re gonna find out who wants this more — men or women.”
Are we back to the days of Mars versus Venus? Or did we never leave?
It is the ultimate battle of the sexes in the most visceral of elections. Who will prevail? The women, especially young women, who are appalled at the cartoonish macho posturing and benighted stances of Donald Trump and his entourage? Or the men, including many young men, union men, Latino and Black men, who are drawn to Trump’s swaggering, bullying and insulting, seeing him as the reeling-backward antidote to shrinking male primacy.
Drilling into the primal yearnings of men and women — their priorities, identities, anger and frustration — makes this election even more fraught. When I wrote a book about gender in 2005, I assumed that, a couple of decades later, we’d all be living peacefully on the same planet. But no Cassandra, I. The sexual revolution intensified our muddle, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence in the 21st century. The more we imitated men, the more we realized how different we were.
Progress zigzags. But it was dispiriting to see the fierce backlash to Geraldine Ferraro, Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton’s co-presidency and candidacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yup.
Geraldine Ferraro.... another Northeast liberal.
Anita Hill.... lying b*tch trotted out and propped up by Dems to try and derail Clarence Thomas' nomination.
And Hillary.... no one voted for Hillary Clinton or a co-presidency! And her lack of appeal was confirmed in 2008, and reconfirmed in 2016.
But it was all sexism and chauvinism right Mo?
Hysteria: A state of mind or emotion that involves ungovernable emotional excess.
Where did the unhinged woman scream at the toddler?
—-
At the Harris rally in Houston I think
If you mean “what” I couldn’t make it out
Because, Mo, you idiot, even though you can imitate a man, you are still a woman!
you would think male voters would vote 75-25 for Trump.
—
Against any other candidate yes - against Harris it should be 95-5
Liberals love to pick on the defenseless.
I still enjoy watching the blood drain from FJB's face when Clarence Thomas said his confirmation hearing was "a high-tech lynching."
“How Bad Do You Want It, Ladies?”
A guy could get in a lot of trouble (or lucky) asking a question like that.
Ma Harris
> As an aside, several of my college-educated. women friends - by no means stupid women - are all in for Harris. There is no reasoning with them. And frankly I can’t understand their support for her.
me too (ha ha ha).
since it is not rational, then it must be emotional.
if it is emotional, then could it be something from childhood? i think might.
somehow women at some early time in their lives are being conditioned not to need to think rationally. they are being taught not to think rationally, but emotionally. they are encouraged to think emotionally.
while in theory this can happen any time, i would just throw out the conjecture that this occurs in schools, when girls are between grades 2 through 7 inclusive.
parents who coddle young girls for being cute when they are having temper tantrums may also be partially responsible.
somehow, women expect someone else to defend them. someone else to do math for them. someone else to fix their cars when they need service. someone else to buy homes for them. someone else to pay for bar drinks, trips to cancun, ft. lauderdale, whatever. all leading to divorces (if they are married), boxed wine and cats.
“i want my (whatever)” may be “cute” at age 11, but not nearly as cute at age 51.
maybe the boxed wine / cat ladies are angry at their parents (who may not be in the picture any more) and jealous of their higher social value male counterparts of equal age for having fed them semi-truths (oh you are so cute) which do not justify becoming the foundation of their lives and philosophies... psychologists and anthropologists might research this phenomenon if they have not already done so... i suspect there would be zero tolerance for such cute behavior among young girls in non-western societies...
Okay, WhoTF is she?
A young Catherine Zeta Jones. Sheesh. How dense can you get?
what i perceive is that young western girls are trained / encouraged to use sex to get men to get what they want. the training includes media marketing— newspapers, TV, movies, books, magazines, etc.
this generally works, but only as far as the girls are and remain sexually attractive. women who never were sexually attractive or who lose their sexual attraction with age become frustrated and then resentful and jealous. they have no rational perspective because they have retained no rational training which are needed to deal with life challenges in an independent manner. the average puberty age of usa women is 11 (corresponding roughly to 6th grade), so perhaps the sex-over-rationality training is largely completed by age 11. so trained at this early age, girls could then utilize the training in benign ways immediately starting at that age, and by the age of consent (varying between 16 and 18 from state to state), they are legally presumed to be able to interact with other adults of all ages and experience in the adult world, not at entry level (like most western males, or at least me lol), but at whatever level their sexual attractiveness can command. such girls then receive even more positive feedback for their “mature” behavior relative to men their age. however western girls generally are not told what to expect on the other side of 30 or on the other side of menopause.
That little brat needs a punch in the mouth.
the title of dowd’s editorial seems to acknowledge the implicit or explicit role of sex in determining western womens’ rationality, at least in regards to politics.
and it does so in a way that would at least on the surface seem highly suggestive and offensive to women at least in polite society.
beyond the political quid pro quo, the title seems to allude to prostitution, and invite the parallel between the sex for money paradigm.
john gray, author of men are from mars (etc) has a Ph D. but it is from Columbia Pacific University, a correspondence school which has long since become defunct. this is not exactly a ringing academic bona fide. it has been a long time since i read the book but what is the summary? that men and women think differently and need more communication? i would agree with dowd if she is claiming that that seems dated (along with her own book on the topic from 2005).
it is established fact that western women think differently from western men. but why, especially if we accept the feminist premise that women can think just as well as men.
dowd undermines most of whatever she seems to be trying to argue for by going on an irrational TDS rant early in her editorial. did she eat some bad baloney in her fridge? bad wine in the box? what?
her editorial title and her points are self defeating. what would she, or her presumed savior, round-heels, say to netanyahu or iranian mullahs in a mideast peace conference? how badly do you want it? she (or surrogate roundheels) would be laughed out of the conference in 5 seconds.
note to she who wants what she can never have: power is power. and p**** is p****. don’t confuse the two.
She feels disheartened because of backlash to those women, but no mention of Sarah Palin.....why is that Big Mo?
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.