Paul Craig ROBERTS
American feminists have finally broken the spirit of the American white heterosexual male. I have been watching for some time the American male, or what little is left of him, meekly accept feminists’ definitions of words and male behavior.
First the feminists turned the male respect for, and politeness toward, women, respect inculcated into my generation, into “sexism.” Today men no longer stand when a woman enter’s a room, and they don’t open doors for them unless it is an elderly and feeble relative. Feminists insisted on getting women off the pedestal and into the rough and tumble world of men.
Feminists also pushed the sexual revolution, especially Cosmopolitan magazine, until women became as sexually promiscuous as men. As sex became casual and as the constraints on male behavior toward women were discredited as “sexist,” boundaries became blurred, and there is plenty of room for confusion. University student sex codes acknowledge the confusion. We see it in the requirements that the male must ask permission for each piece of female clothing he removes from his willing partner.
All of this was entirely the work of feminists.
But today it is the feminist redefinition of words and their substitution of feelings for factual evidence that catch men off guard. What convinced me that the era of the male is over is what just happened to University of Massachusettes football coach Mark Whipple. On paper Whipple does not have the profile of a whimp. He was a NFL assistant coach. He led UMass to five winning seasons, elevated the team to the highest level of Division I, and garnered for UMass a Division I-AA national title.
Last Saturday he unknowingly undid himself when outraged by what he saw as a non-penalty call on pass interference that he thought cost UMass the game, he said: “we had a chance and they rape us.”
All hell broke lose. Whipple was publicly denounced by UMass athletic director Ryan Bamford, a male trained to jump through feminist hoops:
“On behalf of our department, I deeply apologize for the comments made by head coach Mark Whipple on Saturday after our game at Ohio. His reference to rape was highly inappropriate, insensitive and inexcusable under any circumstance.”
“I am deeply sorry for the word I used on Saturday to describe the play in our game. It is unacceptable to make use of the word ‘rape’ in the way I did and I am very sorry for doing so. It represents a lack of responsibility on my part as a leader of the program and a member of this university’s community, and I am disappointed with myself that I made this comparison when commenting after our game.”
What are we to make of this? Have feminists appropriated the definition of rape to mean only what they say it means: male sexual abuse (undefined) of women? If a male uses the word in any of its other senses, why does he have to grovel and beg forgiveness?
Whipple is a football coach, not an English professor who could have come up with a word better fitting Whipple’s outrage. Nevertheless, “rape” has meanings other than forced sexual penetration of a female. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary gives this meaning:
“The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place: the rape of the countryside.”
There are a number of book titles that use “rape” in the sense of “ruin,” “despoil.” For example:
The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War by Lynn H. Nicholas
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art by Roger Kimball
Are we now to expect scholars Lynn Nicholas and Roger Kimball to grovel like Whipple in the face of feminist tyranny?
I suppose so.
Compare Whipple’s public rebuke by his boss, his abject apology, and his temporary suspension from his job for using correctly a word with no intention of offending anyone with Georgetown University associate professor Christine Fair, who intended to offend the Senate Judiciary Committee with her tweeted outrage about Kavanaugh:
“Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”
There are a number of sources for this extraordinary quote:
Did professor Fair get sent to sensitivity training? Of course not. Georgetown University quickly rushed to her defense on freedom of speech grounds. In universities, free speech is only denied to heterosexual males and football coaches.
Linger a bit with Professor Fair. A professor is supposed to be a scholar with respect for facts and evidence, but all Christine Fair is capable of is an outburst of blind hatred. She has no way of knowing who is telling the truth. Clearly the charge is a political one even if true. The Senate Judiciary Committee permitted Kavanaugh’s accuser to present her case. To protect the female accuser from being questioned by male senators, the committee hired a female attorney to question the accuser. The female attorney concluded that Kavanaugh’s accuser did not have a case that could be prosecuted.
What does this tell us about Christine Fair. It tells us that the only reason that a person who relies on emotion instead of evidence is a tenured member of the Georgetown University faculty is that she is female and was hired in place of several dozen better qualified males to fill a female quota.
As I have written so often, the American population is insouciant, and that word is an euphemism. They have no awareness of what is happening in front of their eyes as they are eased into a mindset that accepts as fact that the male/female relationship is one of male abuse of the female. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have a female boss who has been brainwashed by feminism. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have female subordinates (or colleagues). His very survival depends on many things, such as having the Human Resource Department evaluate the females’ job performance. Even at this distance, most likely the task would have to be performed by a female.
Female accusation of male abuse is now a powerful political, social and personal weapon. We currently have a porn star accusing President Trump of having consensual sex with her. Why is she doing this? She has already been paid off. Are her ratings dropping? Is this for notoriety? Is she being paid as part of the military/industrial complex/Democratic Party/feminist attack on Trump?
Look at what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh once he was nominated to the Supreme Court. A woman appears. She partially remembers an incident of three or four decades ago in an unchaparoned home where teenagers were drinking, what house and where it was she does not remember, but she remembers a drunk Kavanaugh throwing her on a bed and tussling with her fully clothed.
She wasn’t raped. She wasn’t injured. The question totally uninteresting to feminists is: “What was she, a 15-year old, doing there?”
By the 1980s teenage females in unchaperoned houses with teenage males with harmones on full boil and alcohol present were assumed to be sexually available. Why else were they there? Were her parents uninterested in her whereabouts? Did she lie to her parents about where she was going?
But to raise such obvious questions is proof that you are a misogynist. Females bear no fault. Only males.
The main problem with feminism is that it is so totally unscientific that it must assault science. At the University of Durham in the UK, where I was once in distant times interviewed for an appointment, a male has been punished for re-tweeting an article that states that females do not have a penis.
Such a factual statement goes against the feminist ideology that there are no differences between women and men—not even physical differences. In Sweden a professor is being investigated for saying in a lecture that there are anatomical and biological differences between men and women. A feminist student objected, and so a professor of neurophysiology is being held accountable for stating a scientific fact.
Anyone who does not realize that feminists are crazed far beyond the meaning of the word crazy, should read this:
“A Swedish university is investigating a professor for ‘anti-feminism’ and ‘transphobia’ after he said there are biological differences between men and women. He is being urged to retract his comments.”
In the assault on Kavanaugh, we are witnessing an Identity Politics assault on the White Heterosexual Male, an assault whose purpose is less to block Kavanaugh than to discourage white heterosexual males from standing for office as it is so easy for feminists to ruin a man’s reputation. The plan is to put the “victim groups” of the white male in office so that retribution can be handed out to white males in keeping with feminist professor Christine Fair’s agenda of killing them, castrating their dead bodies and feeding them to swine.
Perhaps white males have understood this. You see them increasingly with Asian and Hispanic women, not with white women who are increasingly seen with black men. In another generation or two, perhaps the white ethnicities will have disappeared.
Then to whom will Identity Politics assign the hated role?