GOP accuses Cory Booker of 'mansplaining' to Homeland Security secretary in bigotry lecture

Article here. Excerpt:

'Booker, who is black, told Nielsen that racism and violent white supremacism festers when people don't speak up about it, that he and other minority senators had faced death threats, and that Nielsen's "silence and amnesia is complicity."
Video clips of the exchange, which included Booker sharply cutting Nielsen off when she tried to respond, went viral on the Internet. Along with acclaim from supporters, Booker faced criticism, with some saying his outrage was feigned, something he learned from actors who contributed to his campaigns. Others said his treatment of Nielsen was akin to assault.
The RNC sent out in an email with pictures of Booker gesturing angrily and accusing him of spending 10 minutes "mansplaining" about immigration policy to the woman who runs the department responsible for it.

The release said that if a male Republican had done what Booker did to Nielsen, "there’d be a hashtag within minutes, campus protests across the country, and the topic-du-jour for celebrities at Hollywood’s next award show."'

Like0 Dislike0


You can hear the SJW Hooey Machine (close kin to the Feminist Hooey Machine) seize up, stall, cough up smoke, etc., when members of "oppressed" groups clash over identity issues. They quickly turn on each other, like Roman legions each led by rival generals vying for the emperorship, but once meeting on the field are unsure how to fight bc they were all trained the same way. It's hard to get one over on the enemy when he is so very much like you.

Then add the RNC being self-damagingly opportunistic by taking a page from the Feminist Playbook and employing an anti-male derogatory neologism in an effort to chastise an opponent.

All in all, while you may not be comfortable w/ Booker getting angry (male anger scares many ppl, incl. other males -- this is something I feel we need to work on), but his job as a representative of the ppl is to hold executive branch officials accountable for their behavior. Booker may find behavior objectionable that others don't, but in a republican system of gov't, it is the elected representatives who speak generally for the people. And indeed, we also pay them to get angry when they feel something needs it. (Individuals may disagree with what for, but so be it.) If we will tell our male reps it's not OK to get angry at a woman, then just when do they get a good dose of anger when they earn it? Never? Or only from another woman? (And if so, need she also be from the same party to avoid condemnation?)

Like it or not, anger serves a purpose. It defends that which needs defending. It also can be grounding, making it clear that the angry person isn't playing games. That is, it can stress the importance of an issue. Anger is necessary in gov't processes at times in order to get issues pushed. Feminists have been using anger quite successfully for decades to push their agenda. But to them, only female anger is acceptable, most esp. when directed at men.

Had the roles here been reversed, she'd've been praised for being tough on Booker.

Any interest I may have had living/working in the DC area again has been extinguished. As for public office -- you must be nuts. Why anyone, male or female, who is also reasonably sane, would even desire a public office these days is beyond me.

Like0 Dislike0