What’s the latest outrage from The New York Times? Perhaps it’s Kate Zernike, a reporter there (from what I can gather I found no google reference to a specific title) who wrote an opinion column entitled “Post-feminism and Other Fairy Tales” which appeared in their “Week in Review” section.

As I am not a regular reader of The Gray Lady I was originally under the impression that its placement there meant that it was one of its more factual pieces…which, in retrospect, was a misguided assumption at every level. I soon found that the author’s slant was as politicized as that of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, there is so much wrong with her perspective that I am not sure where to begin …but begin I must. Zernike’s basic theme is that feminism should not be dead because women still have it bad in America and that more statist feminism is the method by which to redress their needs. Why would she posit such an absurd claim? For five reasons and I’ll go through now. First, some hecklers told Hillary Clinton to “iron their shirt” at a rally. Second, Hillary had to defend her likeability to critics. Third, the actress portraying her on Saturday Night Live was “shut out” of a fictional debate…on a television program.
Fourth, that Governor Spitzer cheated on his wife, and fifth, some Americans deem prostitution to be a victimless crime.

Okay, so it’s easy to laugh about this lowbrow stuff but for me it harkens back to those times when I’ve been called a whiner for arguing over the non-existence of the patriarchy or some other politically correct edict. You see, I’m a white male so I’m supposed to let people lie about me along with the worth of my ancestors. But I don’t and fighting back is usually what gets you called a whiner.

So this article presented me with a quandary because whining is about all Ms. Zernike does. Hence, I’ll point this out, but, unlike my opposition, I won’t mistake pointing it out with refutation. I will accept the burden of rejoinder. As an overview, her supposed justifications for yet more pernicious feminism are preposterous and unintentionally elucidate how privileged women are in America.

Now whether this reporter has any talent or knowledge does not matter on aggregate because Ms. Zernike is an important person whereas obscure internet guys like me are societal outsiders whose views are discarded by politicians and members of the intelligentsia. Readers may not know this but most television and radio stations have their messages formed by what The New York Times preaches from its elitist, and unworthy, heights.

That being said I will now respond in detail. First, in America, women already have equal rights and equality of opportunity. That is how it should be but what they must not have is the right not to be criticized. No one should have that right as it makes a Nero out of the construct of equality. If you want to live in a place where you can’t criticize the government then you should buy a one way ticket to Iran or Cuba but don’t bring those tyrannies here.

If a person wants to run for office then they better expect to hear plenty and most of it won’t be therapeutic. Now I don’t know whether the guys with the “iron my shirt” signs were shills for Hillary or not but I do know that they have a right to express their opinions even if they are dumb. Personally, I iron my own shirts (not dress shirts as historically I mess up the collars) but just as I would not ask a woman to iron a shirt for me I, in turn, would not iron one for them.

As an aside though, given the way the Hillary camp played up this improbable incident, it reminded me of the Gleiwitz ruse from 1939 in which the Germans staged an attack on their own Silesian radio station as a means of justifying a war on Poland. We’ve already seen numerous times how heavy handed her campaign has been and it is a distinct possibility. They play to destroy…and also to win.

Although suspect, Zernike buys its legitimacy board, starch, and sinker. Indeed, she points out that it caused Chelsea Clinton to finally “get” feminism. She could not believe that the media reacted with amusement rather than outrage over this unseemly request of her mother. Frankly Chelsea, if you want to “get” feminism then the first thing you should do is contemplate the way that it allowed your mother—a woman with no electoral or official political experience—to suddenly become a US Senator and not have to pay any dues along the way. Even Barack Obama, before he became a leftist rockstar, had to serve time in the chambers of the Illinois General Assembly but for Hillary the gates to privilege are open and gaping.

Chelsea should also recall that her opponent in the 2000 New York Senate race, Congressman Rick Lazio, walked over to her mother in a debate and asked her to sign a pledge renouncing the use of soft money but she wouldn’t do it despite saying she would previously. What was the result? The media was outraged—not by mom’s duplicity—but by Lazio violating her personal space. That sort of thing just cannot be done…to a woman.

They interpreted her sauntering as an act of aggression. Who did Lazio think he was treating her as an equal? She isn’t, she’s a sacred cow. The media played the supposed offense up and it influenced voters. Rick Lazio did nothing wrong, however, and to his credit called out his critics. Specifically, he said, “I think the idea that somehow there’s a double standard because you’re a man or a woman and that you can’t make a point forcefully because you’re a man and the person you’re making the point with is a woman — I just think that’s sexist.”

He was right but it mattered not. Nobody cared what Lazio thought. After all, he was an oppressor. What would one expect an oppressor to say in that situation? Besides, a man isn’t aloud to cast allegations of sexism. That’s forbidden. Clinton’s longtime henchmen Howard Wolfson ridiculed him with glee: “Poor Rick, let me be the first to offer him my support.” Lazio’s expectations of fair treatment were as unmanly then as they would be considered today.

Yet who was the real man in that situation? Lazio, he stood up for himself and defended what was right while Wolfson played the role of Hillary’s submissive, and the world doesn’t need any more submissives for Hillary. After all, what happens when she coasts into a town to give a speech? Well, the first thing that occurs is that all of the red balls and whips on the store shelves fly out the door. It would nice if her campaign realized how burdensome her visits are for members of local S&M communities.

At any rate, Warner Houston over at Newsbusters.org looked into the ironing protest and found that the two guys brandishing the placards did so, not as a means to politically express themselves, but to get PR for two radio shock jocks in Boston. Now that Chelsea has experienced her feminist awakening, what is it exactly that she would have us do to these protesters? Kill them? Imprison them? There are no acceptable answers. What the authorities must do is something which totalitarians leftists cannot do; they should respect diversity.

VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THIS COLUMN HERE.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island and a series of video podcasts called “Chapin’s Inferno.” He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...