March 14, 2014
Should Hillary Clinton be selected by the New World Order banking interests as the next puppet-in-chief, we can assuredly expect to see renewed interest in militant feminism across America. Perhaps not coincidentally Facebook COO and longtime Hillary supporter Sheryl Sandberg has launched the latest Politically-Correct PR stunt: #BanBossy.
The message of the #BanBossy campaign is, in a nutshell, that girls are disproportionately discouraged from taking on leadership roles because they were called cruel names like “bossy” when they were children. ”By middle school, girls are less interested in leadership than boys,” so claims the slickly-produced video meme:
The facts, however, belie the cult-victim status that women and girls have claimed for themselves. According to Christina Hoff-Sommers, author of meticulously sourced books like The War Against Boys and Who Stole Feminism, “Women in the United States now earn 62 percent of associate’s degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60 percent of master’s degrees, and 52 percent of doctorates.”(Source: The Atlantic, 2013)
The fact that women earn less than men has been clearly demonstrated to be a statistical anomaly caused by widely differing career choices between men and women, and not by outright discrimination. When we compare the incomes between men and women in identical professions, the income gap is essentially nil.
I doubt that the well-meaning (but completely misguided) spokespeople in the #BanBossy viral videos would truly advocate putting a law on the books that would literally “ban” a word, but that isn’t the point of political-correctness. Being “PC” means that you feel a sense of shame and guilt for saying or even thinking a certain word that contradicts somebody’s political agenda.
The #BanBossy movement has the potential to influence public school policy, which has been shown to censor political speech and suppress students’ first amendment rights. We have already seen a disturbing trend among public school officials to harass, suspend, or otherwise discipline students for committing gun-related thought-crimes, such as wearing an NRA-themed T-shirt, using the word “gun,” bringing miniature toy guns to school, or (heaven forbid), even pointing their fingers into the likeness of a gun.
What does it mean when a girl is being “bossy?” The BanBossy campaign states that being called “bossy” is a demeaning form of name-calling, equating the word “bossy” with “leadership” and “assertiveness.” The truth is that “bossy” girls are bullies. While male bullies tend to dominate other students with physical violence, girls tend to rely on other schoolyard tactics which can be no less damaging, such as name-calling, spreading vile rumors and perpetrating (sometimes vicious) acts of verbal and emotional abuse on their fellow classmates – male and female alike.
Perhaps you remember being in grade school? Weren’t there always a few girls that had no qualms about getting in your face, telling you what was wrong with you and what you should or shouldn’t be doing/wearing/saying? When I was in the third grade I was tormented by one such person. When I brought this to my mother’s attention, she gave me one piece of sagely advice, “tell her to quit being bossy!”
Let us not call a spade a shovel. Being “bossy” is being “bossy” and being a “leader” is being a “leader.” Leadership is a voluntary understanding between individuals. Those individuals that have a natural tendency to lead, say a girl scout troop, will do so, much to the delight of the other girls involved. Those girls who take delight in forcing their opinions and attitudes on others when it is not welcomed should be told what they are doing and why it is disrespectful and antisocial.
The #BanBossy campaign will only serve to inflate the already inflated egos of young girls who are raised and educated in a female-dominated school system in which 87% of teachers are women. Has all of this glorious female-empowerment had any detrimental effects on the family? Let’s find out:
As I’ve already stated, the majority of college graduates at all levels are women. A whopping 80% of divorces are initiated by women. In child-custody battles women will receive custody 68-88% of the time (that’s right out of #BanBossy supporter Arianna Huffington’s own Huffington Post). According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau only 3% of men will receive alimony when alimony is awarded. Of course, if feminists were so concerned about equality, we would expect them to demand that every woman be required to register for the draft when they turn eighteen years old, but I suppose they’re ok with males taking all the bullets in that regard.
In this case, since Hillary Clinton is about to be propped up as the latest minority-as-victim/victor-ignore-the-issues candidate, it would make sense to the State that we should all be conditioned to accept the new “boss” and not complain about it too much.
“Earlier this year , women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?”
Here’s a quick fact: feminism, at least how we know it today, is toxic. It hurts boys, girls, men and women alike. Modern feminists are all-too-enthusiastic to rise up and meet the now-nonexistent challenges of the 1930′s, incorrectly portraying women and girls as victims and the always-evil “white males” as the perpetrators. The truth is that we live in a culture that is dominated with anti-male sentiments.
Let’s take a quick look at how men have been portrayed in popular culture: who is always the “idiot?” – let’s name a few: Homer Simpson (The Simpsons), Peter Griffin (Family Guy), Al Bundy (Married with Children), Hal (Malcolm in the Middle) – the list of henpecked and incompetent males in contemporary situation comedies goes on and on, as if to say that the family unit itself is disintegrating due to milquetoast fathers who have to contend with dominating, controlling and (dare I say) bossy wives. Men seem to be more likely to turn the other cheek and take fiction for what it is, versus launching condemnatory PR campaigns calling for certain words to be “banned.”
What will be the ugly result of the neo-feminist crusaders? The victims of bossy girls (male and female alike) will be censored and shamed against standing up for themselves. Women will be encouraged to nag, harass, dominate and bully their already disenfranchised male partners. Men will (incorrectly) select inappropriate responses in-turn, and relationships will disintegrate. The sad truth is that women, despite their cultural conditioning, are repulsed by weak males, and will find themselves physically repelled by the very partner whom they sought to dominate. When they do decide to leave (which is 80% of the time), they’ll take the kids and a hefty stipend along with them.
But hey, women are still the minority-underclass, right?