PC Mental Gymnastics re. that Viral Catcalling Video

I had avoided talking about this because it involves a lot of aspects, and I just didn’t have the time to get into them all, but the PC mental gymnastics surrounding this are becoming so absurd that I just can’t let it go.

I’m sure by now most of you have seen the video. If you have been hiding under a rock the last few days, it is a video of an attractive woman walking in NYC and getting harassed by catcallers. (And for those saying she really isn’t that attractive, see my protesting too much comment in the post below.)

First of all, catcalling is crude and ungentlemanly as I said about people commenting on Lena Dunham’s appearance in the post below, and people who consider themselves traditionalist conservatives should refrain from such low brow behavior.

That said, the video was clearly an attempt by feminist to assume the victim role and paint men as villains. And that is how it played for a brief period initially. While I believe such behavior is crude, most of what is shown is not what I would call harassment. The guy who follows her for five minutes is creepy, but most of what is shown is just hopeless attempts by guys who don’t have a shot. While I don’t deny that the intent is sexual (as opposed to the silly feminist canard that it is about power), I don’t think most catcallers actually expect their catcalls to work. It is just something they do as a kind of perfunctory display of masculinity.

But it didn’t take long for people to notice, both manosphere anti-feminists and PC liberals, that the vast majority of the people catcalling her were black or Hispanic, and that she was not walking down Wall Street.

So what is the PC brain supposed to do when it has victims groups at odds with each other? It contorts reasoning and makes things up, of course.

Hanna Rosin of the always reliable PC mouthpiece Slate wrote that the video was problematic because it didn’t show enough white men catcalling. They asked the producer, so to speak, of the video why this was, and he gave a handwaving answer that was transparent BS, but Hanna claimed it was proof that all those bad white men who catcalled got edited out. It is inconceivable that the PC minded types who would be involved with such a video would deliberately create an un-PC finished product, so I have no doubt that the video is an accurate representation of her 10 hr walk, and I highly suspect Hanna Rosin understands this as well. She went with the best cover story she had.

Now Slate has published an additional piece by mental contortionist Dee Lockett that is so absurd it reads like an Onion piece. It is titled “White Men Don’t Catcall. They Harass in Other Ways.” Yeah, it’s that bad. It’s worse even. Lockett admits that in her experience white men actually don’t catcall as much, but her explanation for this is so precious that I can’t do it justice. Here it is reproduced below.

I’d bet this is because, as Bliss gets at in his quote, white men, on average, don’t catcall in the same way that men of color do—and oftentimes, as I’ve learned, they don’t do it at all.

That, of course, is not to say that white men don’t have their own predatory nature—one that is expressed in ways unique to their privilege. As we know from countless court cases, it’s not that white men don’t hassle women (or rich white men, as Joyce Carol Oates implied this week in a tone-deaf tweet), it’s that they do it in a different way.

For all men, harassment of women has more to do with establishing power than it does sexual interest; they do it to control space, both public (the very street you both walk on) and personal (a woman’s self-set boundaries). Men of color catcall vocally and visibly on the sidewalk because they have to—not that there’s ever excuse for harassment. They need the “Sexy!” and “Smile!” to create the illusion of dominance in shared public spaces that social constructs and institutional racism have never afforded them control over.

White men, on the other hand, have no use for that sort of catcalling. They marked their territory centuries ago. So, instead, their sexual harassment is less invasive (“in passing,” as Bliss puts it) and harder to recognize—even when it’s staring you in the face. They do it in bars, at parties, on the frat row at your local college campus, in boardrooms, and other places men of color are never privy to, at least not in positions of power.

See more here…

Yeah, it’s those evil white guys again, exercising their “privilege” and continuing to prop up “institutional racism.” I highly suspect the Lockett doesn’t even believe her own drivel. She is like any ideologue whose mind goes into overdrive when the facts contradict their ideology. She was simply looking for the best way to spin this to uphold her ideological doctrine.

The internet reaction to all this PC consternation over people noticing, has been merciless. My favorite is this Change.org petition demanding that all the suppressed white guy video footage be release to Hanna Rosin so she can edit it in a proper PC manner. This is concern trolling at its very best.

The PC coalition is united by the common thread of hate of white men, especially white Christian conservative men. They don’t know what to do, other than blame white men, when elements of their inherently contradictory coalition have dueling victim claims. We’ll see more of this as our blessed diversity increases.

Mars Hill Church Dissolving its Branches

Holy cow! We have commented on the Mark Driscoll issue here before. Now that he’s gone, the church is dissolving it branches.

The title of the article says “Seattle Megachurch Dissolves,” but the way I read it the main church in Seattle is not necessarily going away. They are just cutting off the branches and allowing them to go their own way.

I would like more details. Did a significant faction leave when Driscoll left, or does this just represent decline from the beginning of the controversy? You know the PC warriors are loving this. Now they haven’t just taken down a man, they have taken down an institution.

Once again, the PC thought police must be relentlessly opposed.

Update: Apparently the Mars Hill name will be going away altogether, with the central location left to go its own way just like the branches.

National Review vs. Lena Dunham

This is making the conservative blog rounds, and the left-wing outrage rounds, so it’s worth commenting on. Kevin Williamson has a new National Review cover story on Lena Dunham, the writer and actress of HBO’s Girls fame and well known (notorious?) Obama supporter. She has a new way TMI memoir out. The article is behind a paywall, but you can read the first few paragraphs. I went to the bookstore to buy the hard copy so I could read it, but they still had the Oct 20 issue. Here is a NR blog post that is free that gives a feel for where the article is coming from.

Here is an example of liberal outrage.

I take it that the main gist of the article is that vocal Democrat Dunham, who is presumably all down with the poor and downtrodden, is actually from a quite privileged background. Her father is from those Dunhams, the ones who came over on the Mayflower. (This got me thinking, “I wonder if Lena is related to Obama whose mother is a Dunham,” but a Google search produced a lot of noise.)

First of all, the conservative commenters who criticize Miss Dunham for her weight and looks are out of line. It is neither Christian nor gentlemanly to do such publically. It also sets you up for the charge of protesting too much. While Miss Dunham is not your typical Hollywood beauty, I suspects she looks at least as good if not better than the girlfriends and wives of many of the people yapping about her looks. (The manosphereites can now commence accusing me of white knighting, but read on.)

What makes Miss Dunham unappealing is not her looks but her attitude, behavior and mindset. She is an exhibitionist of sorts. She is already known for frequently appearing nude in her TV series, which she writes so she has no one to blame but herself. She made a video encouraging young people to vote for Obama where she equated voting for the first time with another first time activity. And now she is out with a reportedly all too detailed memoir. I commended gentlemanly behavior above and therefore by implication commended ladylike behavior as well, and this ain’t it.

Aside from how the popularity of Dunham in some circles and Dunham’s willingness to “expose” herself (literally and figuratively) speak to the general decline of our once civilized society, what I find interesting about this is how did Mayflower descendants largely come to embrace a philosophy of liberalism that is so hostile to the country and system that allowed them to flourish. And how did the upper crust, who were once the guardians of proper behavior, become OK with their children tatting themselves up and parading around nude on TV? Where were mom and dad to tell young Lena, “Honey, proper ladies don’t do such things”

Time Magazine Writer Goes After Ron Paul

I’m shocked that an organ of the liberal establishment media still doesn’t like Ron Paul (and wants to house break Rand Paul). But there is nothing new here except the Ebola stuff which has only been in the news recently. As anyone who has followed Ron Paul at all knows. he has always believed in the right of secession, and he has always made the blowback argument, and both positions are easily defensible if the gatekeepers of acceptable opinions would stop hyperventilating long enough to listen.

The article suggests that the elder Paul is hurting Rand’s chances of securing the GOP nomination by continuing to sound off. One could easily see an implied threat here, although I’m not sure that the writer, Denver Hicks, was actually threatening. He could easily just be a blue who imagines that everyone else will be as appalled by “unacceptable” thinking as he and his circle of blue friends and co-workers are.” But the clear message is “Go away Ron Paul and shut up, or we’ll make life hard for Rand.” I suspect we’ll be hearning more of this message as 2016 ramps up.

Here is the response from the Ron Paul Institute.

Ralph Nader Video Clip on Ron and Rand Paul

Here is the video interview of Ralph Nader spoken of in the post below. He says Rand is “changing by the month” and blames Presidential ambition.

I disagree with Ralph Nader on a lot of things, but he tells it like he thinks it is unlike so many politicians and pundits these days. He has very harsh words for Hillary in here as well.

Ralph Nader Disses Rand Paul

Says he needs to be more like his father. Ain’t that the truth?!

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader had some biting words about Rand Paul, saying the self-described “libertarian-ish” lawmaker is retreating from his roots as he broadens his appeal for a potential presidential bid.

“What he ought to do is go back to his father, sit on his knee and become more like Ron Paul,”

See more here…

Has Mark Steyn Gone Birther?

He’s flirting with it at least.

As an aside, this article illustrates the problem with so many articles at WND. First of all, the headline is misleading. Mark Steyn is a significant figure within conservatism, but he is not a “media star.” Also, only the first few paragraphs contain the new story. The rest is a rehash of old news. That stated, Mark Steyn toying with birtherism is an interesting development since most “mainstream conservatives” won’t touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.

For the record, since the old site archives are gone (for now) and we haven’t discussed this issue in a while, I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya. I do think it is possible that his birth story does not match reality or he otherwise has some embarrassing details that he is attempting to hide, and I don’t think the press has done their job of actually investigating. Instead, they have shilled for the official version and been deliberately incurious when questions have been raised.