Discerning FemBull

Leicesterby Katherine Leicester   7/22/14
The article in the Sunday July 29 Seattle Times newspaper by Kyung M. Song, “Cantwell and DelBene Lecture Tech Giants On Gender Equality,” uses a typical passive-aggressive (an indirect expression of hostility) writing style that I find increasingly annoying.

Part of my annoyance is because I prefer my hostility undiluted. If you’re feeling hostile just tell me, don’t run around behind me and whisper because I won’t hear you. Also, rather than reading a complete series of facts describing what happened, I have to decipher a list of contradictory and incomplete allusions to some belief or other that’s so understated it’s impossible to decipher.

The other reason I find articles written with this diaphanous meme is because I dislike cowardice. Passive-aggressive behavior, including writing, is cowardly. And lazy. And annoying. (In case you thought I was passive-aggressively alluding to cowardice and annoyance.)

But, because this style of writing is more common than not, I’ve determined it’s time to do the heavy lifting that should have been done before the article was written. In order to understand the article’s message we must first distil it to the belief system that informs the writer. The result is known as “bias,” which is fine as long as you’re clear about it, and as long as you restrict your bias to the opinions page and not try to pass it off as “reporting.”

Under the guise of reporting “just the facts, ma’am,” the article is in fact the manifesto of the Female-Statist Belief System (FSBS), affectionately referred to as FemBull by many of its critics. To wit:

  1. The corporate world—in today’s article exemplified by the tech industry—deliberately creates working environments that are at best hostile to women.
  2. Women are natural leaders.
  3. Women are better qualified to control organizational culture, because women are more ethical, and because they are women (see #2 above).
  4. Because corporate culture prevents women from pursuing their full potential (see #1 above) the only reliable way to recreate corporate culture is for the State to mandate it, creating such rules and conditions as they deem necessary for enforcement.
  5. This is for the good of all. See #2 and #3 above.

Read the article with this belief system in mind, and see if you don’t come to the same conclusions. Take this idea of distilling what you’re reading down to its belief system and much of what passes for reportage will become glaringly clear.

Kathy Leicester is a blogger, writer, and speaker living in the Greater Seattle area. She blogs about courage and leadership in all areas of life at Jet City Leader. • (1512 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Discerning FemBull

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Only fools and feminazis look out at the culture at large and assume discrimination because women aren’t exactly 50% of any workforce.

    But that’s the Brave New World that most women (and men) have signed onto.

    In the real world, men and women have different talents and drives, by and large. The push for “equality” is a notion hostile to both the essence of men and women. It’s hostile to men because men will be punished for merely achieving, as is a main thrust of being a man.

    And women will be punished if they don’t take on the mindset of a man and wish to have the power and achievement that a man typically strives for. God forbid a woman actually chooses raising children over a career outside the home.

    But in this Brave New World demanded by the nut-jobs such as Cantwell, reality is to be ignored. It has already been decided from On High that women and men are exactly the same (or, as you note, women are assumed to be superior). So if the math doesn’t work out in terms of the numbers of women in any industry then the assumption is discrimination of some kind.

    So basically we are being asked to ignore reality (and what real men and real women want) and replace it with a Communistic political goal.

    I have one question: If women are so damn capable, why must we overturn the world to make sure that they can achieve? And who died and made women our rulers? Why are their supposed needs the new measure of everything? Why are men assumed to be criminals just because they are men?

    And what a stupid opening line by someone who herself is probably the beneficiary of affirmative action (that is, was promoted because of the color of her skin rather than her abilities):

    Congress is hardly a bastion of diversity. The Senate is 93 percent white. The Republicans in the House don’t have a single African-American or Asian-American member. And men in both chambers outnumber women 4 to 1.

    We used to despise the Nazis for looking out onto the world and parsing it through their crank racial theories. So why can some supposed legitimate Seattle Times reporter do the same thing and not be ostracized? This is no doubt why Jonah Goldberg refers to the Left as “Liberal Fascism.” Anyone not immediately horrified by this Nazi-like parsing of society via race should be ashamed of themselves.

    I reject this Brave New World.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A friend of mine once did a parody about an Afrikaner moving here and getting a job running affirmative action, since he was extremely familiar with racial classifications.

      Speaking of Cantwell, another friend once told me that a supporter of hers gave her a lucrative job after she was defeated for re-election to the House in 1994. She then used the money (actually, much of it was stock against which she borrowed, with interesting results when the tech bust drove the stock down) to pay for her 2000 Senate campaign. It’s a nice way of evading the sort of campaign finance restrictions Cantwell pushes.

      As I’m sure you’re well aware, Thomas Sowell has reported extensively on the flaw behind such insane quotaism. Different groups — racial, sexual, ethnic, religious — have different cultural characteristics which give them different skills. (For example, if you need a suicide bomber, an Arab or a Muslim is an excellent choice.)

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    By the way, I just did a count of the last 57 articles published here (not counting the symposiums or blogs). Twenty-two of the fifty-seven were authored by women. That’s about 38.5%.

    Truthfully, it would never occur to me to look at such statistics. I don’t care what you have (or don’t have) between your legs. Good content is all that counts.

    But I think I’ll apply the Communistic Cantwell rule. I’m going to start censoring articles by Glenn, Timothy, and Mr. Kung to make up for the “article disparity.” Sorry guys, but we might as well get used to the Communist way of doing things.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That shouldn’t be a problem for me. My contribution of articles is already disproportionately low. Glenn might have a problem. But anyone who REALLY demands such racial or sexual proportionality is going to be VERY unhappy with FOSFAX, which is mostly by white males.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well, this will indeed be a problem for Glenn. Thankfully there is an easy solution. I will be adding 40 gender categories to the sign-up page. Glenn need only say that he “identifies” as something other than a man for all his articles to count as minority status. Yes, this would be a hit to his dignity, but needs must as the devil drives.

    • That’s the ticket! Progress by repression! It’s the progressive way.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of my sister’s daughters was going out with a guy who was on Cantwell’s staff. That was a couple years back so he might not be there anymore and she might not be going out with him. (Or maybe he’s the guy she’s planning on marrying…or already has. I’m not really hooked too closely into these lines of communication.)

    The interesting thing, from a personal perspective, if you will indulge me a bit, is that I feel much more at home hanging out with my Christian friends. Now there’s a religion that is good even if not all of it makes sense to me.

    But the wacky religion of Leftism I just find stupid. I mean, it’s like a religion that was made for the Romper Room crowd. Don’t remember Romper Room? Here’s a clip. It’s certainly an age-appropriate show (if kids must waste their days away in front of the idiot box).

    Now, imagine that this crowd who grew up on this never actually grew up. What kind of religion would you make for them? Well, of course, you’d make one where fluffy bunnies, unicorns, and Big Rock Candy Mountains are everywhere. You’d design a Utopian religion full of child-like imagery and where everything was “fair” and no one ever had to face hard work or a hardship. Everything (like in Kindergarten) would work out perfectly even.

    How far we fallen as a country comprised of immigrants who braved dangers and hardships all for a chance at freedom. Now we have the equivalent of Communistic Kindergarten teachers as United States Senators.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I don’t think I ever saw Romper Room, though I heard of it. After CNN actually fact-checked a Saturday Night Live sketch that criticized His Majesty the Crimson King (from the left, of course), I wrote one of my short parodies in which they fact-checked old children’s TV shows. (They found that Captain Kangaroo was neither a captain nor a kangaroo — I actually got that from an old Mad piece — and Lamb Chop was inedible, but Crabby Appleton really was rotten to the core. They also found that Dennis wasn’t much of a Menace. In the second show they reportedly were going to find out how much romping really went on in Romper Room. (According to Elizabeth, the name actually came from some children’s clothing called rompers, but what the heck — that was CNN’s error, not mine!)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Hey, at least Mr. Rogers really was Mr. Rogers. Maybe that’s why his show was so different from the rest.

    • You’ve heard the left’s religion described as secular humanism, I’m sure. The two sacraments: abortion and euthenasia. Not terribly attractive when you look at it.

      Doesn’t it seem that the vast majority of adults have the emotional maturity of ill-developed 12-year-olds? Verging on adulthood, everything is seen through the lens of the school clique and who’s popular, and which way should I go so that I will be with the right crowd? This is encouraging, for me, because as I work to climb up the maturity scale and do things that give me a life I can believe in, I rest assured in the fact that many if not most will be opposed, but the people I wish to surround myself with will welcome me with open arms.

      And us Christian folks can be a good time, if you get to know us.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Doesn’t it seem that the vast majority of adults have the emotional maturity of ill-developed 12-year-olds? Verging on adulthood, everything is seen through the lens of the school clique and who’s popular, and which way should I go so that I will be with the right crowd?

        Yes, indeed, Kathy. The one common denominator is the infantilization of our culture. I’d hardly call myself a mature person. But I would say I’m at least a thinking person. And I watch what is going on all around me and am convinced now that nothing good came out of the 60’s, that this “movement” was a movement away from responsibility and maturity and toward being “forever young.”

        That is one reason why “idealism” remains all the rage. “Idealism” is typically associated with yutes. It’s the never-ending desire to be “vital,” “alive,” “energized,” “effective” and all the buzzwords that amount to needing a constant rush (like a drug) of good feelings. The juvenile culture goes hand-in-hand with our society-wide proclivity toward narcissism.

        And along with this, we’ve become a culture with a short attention span. I doubt that 90% of the people out there would actually understand the topics that we regularly discuss here at StubbornThings. And I’ve had a good chuckle more than once reading the comments that follow Glenn Fairman’s articles at American Thinker where even a relatively conservative and erudite crowd in effect tell him, “Could you dumb it down a little?”

        In my opinion, we’ve become to acclimated to being spoon-fed nearly everything, and just the way we want it. Making an effort is an inconvenience. It’s narcissism and consumerism-gone-wild on a large scale. I notice this in my business where people now tend to order things at the last minute and expect them right away. The idea of planning ahead for things (printed material) which are known consumables is too much for some people. (And being a business, we always try to accommodate, and thankfully most of our customers are far more far-sighted.)

        I guess one can indeed find an upside to this, if only by others being an example not to emulate. But we do need good role models in our lives. And if we can give a bit of aid and comfort in that regard here, then all the better. Our time will not have been wasted.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, the true liberal god is Moloch, the god of child sacrifice, with Planned Parenthood as their Tophet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *