Be Inspired with Raquel: Male bashing doesn't make women leaders better

Despite the tragic exception Obama-Biden represent, they did save their worst for men until *after* the second election. If they behaved the way they do now, saying the things they are saying, and it was true they could and are running for a third term, I doubt they'd get the kind of support from male voters they had in the first and second most recent presidential elections. They are not feminists, I think, so much as they are male misandrists. But they are not self-hating males. There is a distinction. Self-hating males are filled with gender-based shame. More than a few male feminists are simply self-hating males. But some, like Obama and Biden, are not self-hating men, but are misandrists. On top of that, they are of course political opportunists. They believe it will help their party in 2016 to say the kinds of nasty things they do about men and support the kind of person (should she actually decide to go for it, which I don't think she will, but is capitalizing handsomely off the state of uncertainty she has created around it) who is right on board with them in their misandry. But I think they are misreading the mood of the people these days, particularly men. And surprise, surprise... men vote in elections!

The 2012 election was won for the presidency by an even narrower margin in popular votes than in 2008, with Obama winning by only the smallest margin in popular votes (51.1% to Mitt Romney's 47.2%), but by a wide margin in electoral votes (322 to 206). Rarely does a president win on electoral votes when the popular vote has him losing. Factcheck.org says it has happened only four times. The most recent was when Bush defeated Gore back in 2000 despite having fewer popular votes than Gore. Prior to that, it was in 1888. So it was just over a 110-year difference between such instances.

In 2012, states with critical numbers of electoral votes went to Obama by very narrow popular margins. Had just a few of them gone the other way, it is possible neither candidate would have had enough votes (270) in the Electoral College to win. Then the vote for president would have gone to the House of Reps, and for the VP, the Senate. Obama need have only come up 63 electoral votes short and the election would have been referred to the Congress. See the results map on Wikipedia for the state-by-state electoral college vote distribution and also on the Wiki page for the 2012 election here for the popular vote results state-by-state. More than 63 electoral college votes could have been lost easily had only four states "gone red". One possible mix is Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Colorado. A mere 71 votes, but 8 more than needed to send the 2012 presidential vote to the Congress. Those are just 4 of 50 states. And the margin in those states?

VA (13 EC votes): 51.16% (Obama) - 47.28% (Romney)
PA (20 EC votes): 51.97% - 46.59%
FL (29 EC votes): 50.01% - 49.13%
CO (9 EC votes): 51.49% - 46.13%

The percentages for each state don't add up to 100% because other candidates received votes, too. Just not many.

Look at Florida. You could almost count on your hands and toes the number of voters needed for Obama to have come in at under 50%.

If there is no absolute majority for a candidate that emerges in a popular election for president within a state, the vote then goes to the state's legislative body, which then votes on which of the candidates the state's electoral votes are to go to. Each state has its own set of rules/laws around this issue, but one approach is simply that the state legislature takes a vote on the candidates and passes a law declaring the allocation of electors proportionately to the votes cast, or that all go to the winner even if he does not get an absolute majority of the legislature's votes, or other states might use the approach of having an initial vote and then if neither wins an absolute majority, the top two are then voted on and the winner is found that way. Whoever wins that vote wins the state's electoral votes. So suddenly a lot of state legislators have to rush back to their state capitals (if they are not in session anyway) and expedite their voting process to make sure they get their state's electoral votes into DC to meet the Dec. 12 "safe harbor" federal deadline for receipt of certified state electoral college vote results. What a media frenzy that would have been.

So after "four more years" of the Obama-Biden thing, does anyone suppose Americans are, in general, ready for a continuation of "the agenda" by their successors who, undoubtedly, will be cut from the same cloth, even if they are not the Clintons?

Do you suppose that American men are now ready to keep voting like they did in 2012? Take a look here. The gender difference is almost an exact mirror split of proportion: Men: red, 52%; women: blue: 55%.

Do the Dems think they will be able to pick up *more* women voters in 2016? Or even this year in Nov. when Americans go to the polls to elect Congressoids? I think it's fair to say that the Dems, after years of pandering to feminists, have as many female voters by population percentage as they are likely to get. But male ones? They have been male-bashing exceptionally hard these past 2 years and show no signs of slowing down. Men voting blue, my gut tells me, are ready (esp. those after years of unemployment and being ignored by Obama, et al., in their predicament) to go red and try that bunch for awhile. And female voters? If Dems can't gain more voters via continued male-bashing, is it also possible that they can lose some of them the same way? Possibly. But what of the now well-disillusioned American youth who thought "Hope" and "Change" also came with a decent job market, not new laws requiring them or their folks to buy things they cannot afford or to take from them things they could afford and force them to buy something they can't afford in its place? (I am of course speaking here of the so-called Affordable Care Act's effects on so many people here in the US.) People of both sexes are I am sure not nearly as enchanted with the Dems., nor perhaps politics in general, as they were 4 years ago.

Just a few tens of thousands more voters to go red, or even just to vote non-main-party, like Libertarian or Green. That's all it'll take. Drop in the bucket when speaking of more than 700 million people, with 222 million eligible to vote. Considering 2012's turnout was 58%, and assuming 2014's will be a hot one, so let's say it'll be a 65% turnout, that's 144.3 million voters. But in 2012, ~130 million votes were actually counted, so maybe 144.3 million votes in 2016 is a bit of an overestimate given some number of votes are always thrown out for whatever reason. So with an even lower number of votes likely to get counted, the difference in a few 10s of 1,000s of votes becomes even more significant.

Keep talking $hit about men, Messrs. O and B. Really, just keep at it. All you need do is alienate a few percentage points worth of men (and some women who see what you are up to and quite rightly don't like it) and the presidential/VP election will go the Congress and/or some states that didn't vote a majority for your would-be successors or any of their opponents. And who do you suppose will have majorities in the House of Reps and Senate in 2016? My money's on the GOP.

But all the foregoing aside, if the GOP has the Congress *and* the WH by Jan. 2017, while we will no longer have to listen to the incessant blather of feminists like Hillary and misandrists like Obama and Biden, we will still, as a nation, have problems. Big ones. We'll still have an economy operating way below where it needs to be, esp. when employing people adequately is concerned. We'll still have the same problem of both parties being easily corrupted in what they pay attention to, given SCOTUS has ruled that there ought to be no limit to financial contributions to political parties because it's "free speech". (Yes, as I have often typed here before: Money doesn't talk, it screams. There's some free speech for ya.) And we'll still have the legacy of incredibly poor financial and foreign policy management over the prior eight years, making bad situations created by GWB only worse. (I mean, Obama makes even many Dems long for the GWB days! How bad at being POTUS does one have to be to want that?) And we'll still have loonies to be concerned with who want to replay 9/11 on our soil as often as possible, whether we decide to fight them back or not. So booting the current crop of idiots from office is only part of what needs doing. At the same time, making sure we get actually competent leaders and administrators in office is needed. As for uncorrupted/incorruptible ones, well, I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. At this point, I'll settle for competent.

*Sigh*...

"During her spiel, she put women on a pedestal and downplayed men as if they were not a part of the equation. She made men the primary target of several offensive jokes. It was a clear case of male-bashing. She pitted women against men and capitalized on some of their so-called inadequacies. It was not a gutsy move. It was a stupid move."

These are the same women who have been raising our sons, telling them how evil they are and how responsible they are for all the evil of the world. The boy's only hope for redemption is to win the approval of women. Only the approval of a woman can somehow save a boy (or man) from the original sin of being born male.

But then an Eliot Rodgers comes along and these women blame his actions on "toxic masculinity." Maybe it's not toxic masculinity. Maybe it's the constantly repeated refrain that being male is toxic in and of itself. With the only chance being female approval. And if you don't get that, you're inherently evil and worthless. This entire feminist "theology" creates male resentment towards women. And it is a type of theology: there is a movement afoot to literally worship women. What a crock!

The only solution is to abandon feminist theology and affirm and teach boys they have value in and of themselves, whether they ever gain the approval of a woman or not. Or whether they get laid or not.

If you constantly beat a dog, one of two things will happen: he will lose his spirit and become docile and submissive. Or he will one day turn on you and take a chunk out of your hide. In sum, socializing boys by telling them they're the source of all evil in the world may not get the results you hope for. But it's the feminist way.

"In sum, socializing boys by telling them they're the source of all evil in the world may not get the results you hope for."

Precisely. In fact, that statement's truth is yet even acknowledged by feminists. For decades they've insisted children live up to expectations, thus gender roles or people's behaviors can be traced inexorably to socialization. In no small way, both feminists and many others are right, but only to a certain extent. Socialization accounts for a lot of how people behave, but definitely not all of it. One solid example of the power of socialization does indeed include mutable gender roles, like whether men expect they can assume a primary child-rearing role or women a primary "bread-winner" role. That's powerful stuff. Expecting people also to act badly/under-achieve undoubtedly has as powerful an effect.

Treating boys/men like dirt is a great way to engineer self-fulfilling feminist prophecies.

We think you're dirt, so treat you like dirt, thus you learn to believe you're dirt, thus you act like dirt, which affirms the beliefs of those who treat you like dirt, and round it goes! Brilliant! It's an infinite loop of feminist wickedness!

Back in 1968, a schoolteacher in Iowa did an experiment with her class in which she divided her class into "blue eyes" and "brown eyes". The first day, the blue eyed kids were told they were superior, and the second day the brown eyed kids were told they were superior. The performance and mood of the discriminated against children was dependent on whether they were on the top or the bottom. At the time it was meant as an analogy to the way blacks were treated by whites in the aftermath of the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination.

This is a good analogy for how males are treated compared to females in a feminist-influenced culture. And the low esteem that males are held in hence becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

A Class Divided can be found here in video form:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWXB1S1jHKo