Ignoring Reality

Just a quick observation on Hillary Rodham’s response, or lack of response, to Obama’s massive win in Wisconsin. For the second time, she lacked the grace the acknowledge Obama's win and congratulate him. It is almost mystifying that a politician would be so openly bitter. Meanwhile, Hillary’s legions of hardcore women supporters are saying that she is losing because of “sexism.”

Huh? What happened to racism? Let’s not forget how Billary worked so hard in South Carolina to paint Obama as the “black candidate” (e.g., another Jesse Jackson) hoping for white backlash in subsequent states. No such luck.

Well, the gender feminist perspective explains exactly why and how Rodham would simply ignore Obama’s incredible streak of 10 wins. It’s a gender feminist thing to ignore reality. In fact, reality is to be avoided at all costs. For example, all scholarly studies show that women are at least as likely to perpetrate domestic violence as men. How often do you hear about that from the VAWA mob? Ignoring reality has gotten so bad that even Group Health decided to simply exclude questioning men in their survey of domestic violence. Talking about stacking the deck!

There is no sexism in the race. If men are voting for Obama, it’s because (1) they like him and (2) they know Hillary does not like them. That’s sexism? Well, it sure isn’t racism. And, yes, Hillary Rodham is losing.

There's more! Click to read

Let's Add More Regulation

The Seattle Times reports proof that the Seattle Silly Council’s talk of affordable housing is mostly hot air. According to UW's Economic Policy Research Center, the city’s regulations add $200,000 to the cost of the median priced home in the city.

To Seattle’s city government, the only form of politically correct and acceptable “affordable housing” is housing that is provided by the city. In other words, housing that promotes dependency and political loyalty among the dependent.

Ask this city department what they are doing to help make housing more affordable.

As a property owner in Seattle, I’d like to see even more regulation. The national decline in housing prices will catch up with Seattle. So, let’s make sure we do something to limit supply and raise the cost of new construction even more. For example, let’s put each new construction project, from a re-model to a hi-rise, on the ballot for voter approval. That should slow things down.

Unfortunately, rising housing costs also discourage employers from moving to the area and cause some to leave. That eventually reduces demand and might hammer real estate prices with the coming recession Governor Gregoire is calling for. But, hey, we can all sell out before that happens. We might have to anyway, when that job moves to a more affordable city.

There's more! Click to read

Thanks Hillary!

MSNBC reports that Obama won the state of Virginia in part because he enjoyed a large majority among white male voters. Meanwhile, MSNBC also reports that Hillary Rodham is not doing nearly as well among white women as her original strategy called for. For even more detail, see today's Washington Post article.

This brings to mind a couple of things. First, the recent opinion column by Leonard Pitts published in the Seattle Times. According to Pitts:

Brace yourself. I'm going to use a word that offends folks. I'm talking the "F" word.

Feminist.

This woman sent me an e-mail Monday and it got me thinking. See, in describing herself, she assured me she was not "a 'women's libber' " — the late 1960s equivalent of feminist. She also said she was retired from the U.S. Navy. There was, it seemed to me, a disconnect there: She doesn't believe in women's liberation, yet she is retired from a position that liberation made possible.

Intrigued, I asked my 17-year-old daughter if she considers herself a feminist. She responded with a mildly horrified no. This, by the way, is the daughter with the 3.75 GPA who is presently pondering possible college majors, including political science, psychology and ... women's studies. I asked her to define "feminist."
There began a halting explanation that seemed to suggest shrillness wrapped around obnoxiousness. Abruptly, she stopped. "It's hard to explain," she said.

Pitts goes on to label his daughter a feminist regardless of what her own view on the matter is. I bet she was thrilled to read that. In fact, he goes on to describe just about all women as feminists by default. But, the fact is, many, many women are recoiling from this label because it has been identified with an obsession with victimhood. They are tired of it.

Pitt goes on:

We have, I think, lost collective memory of how things were before the "F" word. Of the casual beatings. Of casual rape. Of words like "old maid" and "spinster." Of abortion by coat hanger. Of going to school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and needing a husband's permission. Of taking all your spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition, aspiration, creativity, and pounding them down until they fit a space no larger than a casserole dish.

Therein is your problem, Leonard. And Hillary. Never mind that plenty of women then and today yearn to be at home with their kids despite the work opportunities available to them. False claims of “casual beatings,” as if American men have historically treated women that way (false). False claims of “casual rape,” as if rape were ever considered anything but completely abhorrent in our country. The reality is that men, if any thing, were once much more willing to defend women. I suspect men have lost respect for women and are much less likely to protect them now than before, in large part because they are sick and tired of being vilified unfairly.

Gender feminists have been riding the victim wagon for too long, and under false pretenses, and younger women just don’t identify with it. It doesn’t mean these younger women are lacking historical perspective; it simply means that they do not see themselves as victims in a country in which they can clearly see that, for example, more than half (actually more than 60%) of all college students are women. Opportunity abounds for them. They are not victims and do not owe it to today's gender feminists to act like victims in order to pay homage to the original feminists who were fighting for equality (and are not the same women carrying Women Studies taught gender feminist flag of today). These young women owe Hillary Rodham nothing.

As for the white men in Virginia supporting Obama, I think this should lie to rest the stereotype, especially among Seattle-ites, that white Southerners are all confederate flag waiving racists. Sure, there are some bigots left in a state like Virginia, just like there are some bigots left in a state like Washington. But they are a small, small minority.

Meanwhile, men of all colors, even among Democrats, seem to know what is good for them. And Hillary Rodham clearly is not good for them. Men are waking up to the fact that the domestic violence scam has ruined the lives of a lot of guys, especially those of fathers. They know where those laws came from: Hill and Bill. And this is among male Democrats. If Hillary Rodham makes it to the general election through playing dirty against the shining star of Barack Obama, the dearth of male voters would be even wider. The hardcore gender feminist women voting for Hilllary are all in the Democratic party already and form a small base to work from in a general election. She’s going to have a hard time selling her victim politics to independent women. And the male backlash vote will be even larger than what she is experiencing in her own party.

Watching the Democratic primaries is fun because it is clarifying so many things for Americans, while erasing some other false myths. Yes, men know that Hillary Rodham believes in male punitive laws, and is happy to make end runs around the Constitution. These men woke up. Simply put, they know she hates them. Women are not the monolithic victim cult NOW would like all of us to believe. And white men, even Southerners, will vote for a black man who has a larger agenda than simply running on his race.

I once dreaded Hillary’s candidacy. But, as predicted on this blog here, Hillary Rodham played the gender card too soon. She also used the false tears too soon. Now I feel I should write her a personal letter of thanks for accidentally providing the catalyst that might well completely change the stale old identity politics of the past. We may just be seeing the beginning of the end of gender feminist influence on public policy and the beginning of something more balanced.

And, for those of us in the State of Washington, Hillary's slide has to raise the question: Just why are Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray – both so-called “super-delegates” to the Democratic convention – sticking to their commitment to cast their vote for Hillary Rodham even though the Democrats of the State of Washington roundly rejected her?

Democrats who want their Senators to represent them should be asking that question.

There's more! Click to read