“If mama ain’t happy, no ones happy”: Sexist Propaganda?

We’ve all heard the expression “If mama ain’t happy, no ones happy”, right?  This sentiment  has been the cultural standard among couples in the US forever.  It has been the “gold standard” of marital relations.  Keep the woman happy and all will be peaches and cream.

So, if the woman whines, we known it is something the man is doing wrong.  We, as men, need to do everything in our power to keep the whining down – keep mama happy.

But…

If the man is unhappy, guess what.  He is just a whiner…spoiled, selfish.  There is something wrong with him. 

There is no male equivalent to “if mama ain’t happy, no ones happy.”  There is no such thing as “if papa ain’t happy, ain’t no one happy.”  This expression is never heard.

This one-sided responsibility for happiness is just one of countless conflicts exposed by the feminist movement.  The evolving culture insists on equal rights for women, yet the prevailing culture still expects superior treatment of women.

The reality: If papa ain’t happy, no one is happy, either. 

Minimizing the “other side’s opinions”…

I received a comment from a reader who took exception to my blog about a neighbor who characterized Trump supporters as “trailer trash.”   She also objected to my drawing attention to Hillary’s labelling Trump supporters as comprised of a “basket of deplorables.” (See the blog below titled “Attitude against Trump and his supporters.”)

Seemingly out of the blue she said I need to “learn to have a real conversation without minimizing the other side's opinions.”

My critic believes that views about which an individual disagrees should NOT be minimized.

Let’s unpack that admonition a bit.

I agree that if there was a brand new view that I had not yet considered, it would be rash and premature of me to minimize that view.  It should at least be considered, evaluated and either be dismissed, adopted, or put on the back burner for future consideration. 

On the other hand, views that I have already heard, considered and based on solid evidence and experience determined were foolish, ill-conceived, dangerous, or unworkable are the perfect candidates for being “minimized.”   Why?  Because they were already considered and dismissed.  Why shouldn’t such views be “minimized?”  Not “minimizing” views that an individual has already rightly concluded are ill-conceived and which make little sense would be mind boggling.  How can views deemed irredeemable not be “minimized?”  That is just another definition of insanity.

This woman, an educated naval officer, is of the apparent belief that all views, however outrageous, however discredited they may be, should never be minimized.  In her view, all views should be considered as equally valid, equally feasible, equally considered as if they are brand new and have never, ever been considered before – never minimized. 

Such is the view of the newly educated.  To the recent college graduate, everything is so new to them that they cannot fathom anyone “minimizing” a view that they currently believe is immutable.   They cannot fathom the idea that some views are minimized by those who have already found them to be wanting.

This critic admits to being a Hillary supporter.    She apparently thinks its OK for a neighbor to characterize Trump supporters as “trailer trash.”  After all, Hillary confirmed this characterization with her own “basket of deplorables” comment.  So she is very defensive of Hillary and critical of anyone who “minimizes” Hillary’s or her supporter’s bigoted comments.

There are two reasons that come to mind why such person would defend the bigoted comments of Hillary and her supporters:

• Naiveté. She is a young person recently educated in a liberal college with liberal peers and professors who have not offered the “other side” of any story to her in any positive terms.  It is no wonder that she finds my “listing [of] liberal attributes … confounding and baseless.”
• Gender.  She is a female who will give deciding points to any other female running for office just because she is female, aka, playing the “gender card.”  It is no wonder that she defends the indefensible - the words of Hillary and her supporters - and is critical of her opponents.

A word about liberals who demand “tolerance.”  They are among the least tolerant of all humans.  Their cry for “tolerance” is a one-way street.  They want everything “tolerated” except the things that they disagree with.  That is the merging of “anything goes anarchy” (extreme libertarianism) with a form of “dictatorial autocracy” where ONLY the views of the supposedly “tolerant” elite are tolerated.  This is an oxymoronic and duplicitous combination.

“Attitude” against Trump and his supporters…

Basket of Deplorables

Every so often we hear of someone being described as having “attitude.”  I came across such person, a neighbor, who motivated me to write this blog back in March.   Hillary Clinton motivated me to revise it a bit this week.

Having “attitude” refers to a person with an ugly or mean spirit toward something or someone he condemns or despises, with or without cause.

Hillary has “attitude.”  Here are her comments from early September 2016:

“You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets.” First there are “the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking…”

And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump?

They are people, said Clinton, “who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with.”

In short, Trump’s support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

Hillary, queen of elitism, dissing over 50% of the US population.

In the case of those who oppose Trump, most have “attitude” against his supporters.   Many with “attitude” against Trump and his supporters call Trump supporters “trailer trash”, “low life”, “crude”, ”rednecks”, or “uneducated.”  Hillary calls them “the deplorables, the the bigots, the racists, and the haters.”

 

How elites and establishment types characterize Trump supporters.

Since these labels are false accusations in the great majority of instances, such person’s “attitude” is synonymous with being “bigoted” and “prejudiced.”

Who  with “attitude” would characterize half of the electorate in these terms?  Let me think.  Hmmm.  The terms “elitists”, “superiors”, “aristocrats”, “blue bloods”; “snobs”, and “supercilious” come to mind.

Those who insist on our nation “progressing” toward bigger government, a nation without borders, higher taxes, less personal responsibility, more government handouts, and more regulation have “attitude” against Trump and his supporters.  Those who favor socialist, Communist, or  lying, and deceitful opponents who hire paid disrupters, rioters and other rabble to shut down free speech are the ones with bigoted “attitude” against Trump supporters.

These are the types, in and out of government, that fuel Trump’s popularity.  It is the elitist, academic, “government can do no wrong”, “government-as-god” attitude of the elitists that propelled Trump to history-making political status.

If Trump supporters are “trailer trash” than the majority of the electorate may be trailer trash.  That’s a hell of a way to characterize your neighbor.

Only elitists do that.  We can only hope that the common sense of Trump supporters relegate the bigoted elitists to their high distant perches where they will do less harm to the rest of us low life.

Apparently only low life voters desire a candidate who has the demonstrated capacity and force of will to reclaim our nation from the slough of eight years of Obama hell.