John-from-Alberta is the lone Trumpist in my readership. He doesn’t get much support from anyone but me and I only support his right to speak his opinion. I don’t agree with much, if any, of it. He suffers my posts of lefty-shades of pink and then takes it on the chin when he feels the need to disagree. But he keeps on ticking. He gets right back up. C’mon….that’s good! He’s polite. He speaks his mind. I like John. At least I am pretty sure I would.
If he is a true Trumpist, and/or true racist or whatever ‘gist’ we label people, maybe not. But my experience has been that the ones who speak outrageous nonsense, once calm and in deeper conversation, are really just espousing similar values to my own. My guess? John likes Trump because Trump represents the anti-establishment. John really wants change and simply got duped by what appeared to be change. I want change, too. We agree on that.
I suspect that John still has faith and belief in the ‘free enterprise’ system, wants to become a self-made millionaire someday and advocates for law and order because he, himself, obeys the rules and keeps the order. Nothing WRONG with that. Disney-esque, maybe. Naive, for sure. But, so what, at least he is not a corporate slime-ball polluting the Salish Sea or pumping unhealthy food into people. Or drugs. John’s beliefs may be old fashioned and simple but they are steeped in good ol’ family values. I agree with most of ’em. We likely agree on most of those ‘values’.
And so it goes…..scratch a bigot, a bad-guy, a ‘gist’ of some sort and you are likely to find someone coming from the same place as you but disagreeing on a few of the details. Fundamentally, there is NOT a lot of difference between us. We are all in this together. We all want much the same thing. We are all pretty civilized most of the time. And yet………………….we are polarized. In 2017, we are very polarized. Why is that?
Part of it is that separating, polarizing and emphasizing the differences is what we have done for eons. Where would the Liberals be without the Conservatives? The GOP without the DEMS? Chevy without Ford? You almost NEED to make a lot of people bad so that a whole bunch more will follow you and do what you want them to do. Weirdly, dividing is conquering. You may not conquer the opposition but you have softly conquered your followers.
And very divisive.
So, how does that apply to our current Gender Wars battle? Well, there is no doubt that the shrill cries to ‘believe the victim without proof being required’ is one way to alienate, divide and conquer. But it’s a gamble. Some guy appalled at another guy’s behaviour might feel swayed to join the feminist ranks where before he was content to let ‘boys be boys’ and girls be girls’. After all, pussy-grabbing is hardly defensible. That fellow may now feel he has to choose a side. In fact, that fellow is being REQUESTED/required to take a side.
“You with us? ‘Cause, if you ain’t, you against us!”
It also works to divide us as a culture when you insist that all unwanted behavior is assault. That makes any male’s initiative a huge gamble. There are those who decide capriciously what is wanted and they can also reject by ruining the person who offered. That’s threat is so scary, it divides and alienates before ANY communication at all.
I think there is also a denial, a blindness on the part of some modern women. I think some women have no idea what it is like to be male and they do not even want to try wearing those heavy boots for even a minute. They want males to be ‘feminized’ but they do not want to feel the burdens of being male. Not even a bit. These people are the ones very comfortable with the difference and the alienation between the sexes. They do not have any empathy for the guy at all. In anything. “All men are pigs!
That does not serve us in coming together. Who wants to cooperate and be ‘nice’ to someone who hates you because of your gender?
Like politics of all kinds, there is a valid, centrist’s view. A man can oppose groping and yet still believe that a bit of flirting and persuasion is part of the ‘dance’ between the sexes. After all, it is not normal in everyday life for women to take the initiative in romance except by seduction. Hell, they had to invent Sadie Hawkins Day to give some women a chance at the really shy fellows.
A woman does not lose her ‘political position’ on things to try to understand what a man feels and goes through. Understanding is NOT agreement.
And a woman does not lose her moral high ground (claimed, anyway) by accepting due process when there is a dispute. Due process IS higher moral ground.
One gender will always take the first step. Will that now be the women? Are women stepping up en masse and saying, “OK! Fair enough. If it means that we have to risk being turned down, if it means that we have to pay for the date, if it means we have to make the first move all in aid of protecting our fannies, then so be it! Back off, you creeps! If we want you, we’ll phone! Don’t do a thing. Just sit pretty and wait. We had to do that for eons. Now it’s your turn.”
THAT message might fly…
The point: we are all in this together. We are all on the same side. Like my relationship with Alberta-John, we can disagree without histrionics and alienation.
Well, get John to read this.
There is also the possibility that Trump, if he is impeached will pull a “Nixon”.
As he is exiting the White House he will pardon all involved.
Then the new President Pence will pardon him.
Talk about “draining the swamp”..
I cant think of a better way to rain total destruction down on a political party if Trump pulls this off.
The Republicans and possibly the entire political system would be bankrupt in the eyes of the voters.
Not a comment on what I wrote: we being in this life together…..but….to comment on your comment….I heard something like: those alleged crimes (lying to the FBI) were done prior to the president being elected so he would be tried like a citizen. He may be able to pardon others but not himself. But I have no idea really.
Yeah, I was focusing more on Trump than the whole “gender offender” mantra these days.
I’m getting a little jaundiced about the “outing” of predatory behavior.
Its been going on for thousands of years and humans being humans….it will continue for thousands of years.
And I have to be brutally honest, Predators KNOW the people they can pull this crap on and the people they cant…..
Suddenly its the news d’jour?
With all the other stuff going on a la Yemen and North Korea do I really give a $h!t about Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood starlets and the modern version of the “casting couch?
One wonders why, if some of these incidents were reported the police or Upper management why…… didnt act on them until now?
Today’s politically correct ‘hot button issue”…jump on the bandwagon folks, ‘hang em all.
The “public image “execution” is far worse than anything the Law can conjure up.
Bill Cosby had Legions of accusers and now, in his twilight years the best they can do is hound him……
Yeah….life-crushing, reputation-ruining, peer humiliation and social shaming and alienation seems a bit severe for Garrison Keillor touching someone’s bare back or a 92 year old patting a bum.
Physically forced rape? Throw the book. Maybe throw two books. Double penalties if they are too light. But, as you say, even brutal rape hasn’t required as heavy a price as these as-yet-unfounded allegations are extracting. It’s wrong.
And it is not just the gender/sex/behaviour issue – it seems like the age of Trump is another name for the Age of Divisiveness.
Very hard to agree with the title of this blog. Canadians do not need to play the ‘poor me card’. At times opinions are given the weight of facts. Sometimes opinions are given as a justification by the Socially Conservative for violating Charter Rights. Conservatives would restrict human relationships to only those that they approve. No same sex marriages, says Scheer! I will limit choice for Canadians and call it freedom on my terms.
Wow! Fiesty, Anonymous. Nice to see a little passion=_=.
But, surely you know what I mean by ‘poor’? I mean that we are dividing ourselves unnecessarily. John does. He labels himself and supports different others to define himself as different but he is NOT different! He wants what I want. We want the same thing. All of us do. Some think the Conservatives will deliver the good life, some think Trump. Others Trudeau. Poor us! None of those ‘brands’ will deliver. We should all know that by now. Therefore; poor us. Siding with a party only guarantees division and continued failure. Cooperation, NOT separation might do it but polarizing politics just cancels each other’s efforts out. And polarizing over gender differences is just plain assinine to the nth degree.
Aspirational idealism. No political parties? We will still have tribes. Tribalism ensures they will fight for their core beliefs and will not yield. The social divide will not end. The mocking of others will continue followed closely with erosion of the rule of law.
Yes and no. Unity and division are yin and yang. Right now, the balance is out of whack. On many fronts. Worse, division has been imbedded in our culture. The Chinese are maybe too oriented the other way with harmony/unity being pushed. We both have to swing our pendulums.
No pendulum swing only the self appointed judge and jury types telling everyone how to live. They read from the book of amnesia where the thou shalts and must nots are repeated by rote. The old saws are repeated about things that never were and never will be seen no matter how earnestly and fervently they are wished into existence. No sense in talking pendulum swings, what we have here is entrenched, hardened, and inflexible positions. Unforgiving and immovable. Take any social issue and ask around and you will hear the thou shalt not position unaltered.
Hello, it is a rainy day here, so I’m procrastinating reading other people’s blogs rather than writing my own. 🙂 The politics of division does seem to be a feature of western democracies at the moment. In Australia, for many years we’ve had essentially a two-party system and when both are crowding the centre and trying to attract that vote, sooner or later one or other party is going to veer off to the left or right to differentiate themselves. This is also exploited by fringe parties. To bring people (ie. voters) along with you, one has to create division, uncertainty and fear amongst enough people. Anyway, that’s just my opinion. Apart from a few zealots (who push an extreme agenda), I think most of us want much the same thing – good health, a roof over our heads, clean water, sufficient food, peace and safety – albeit we may disagree on the best way to achieve this.
There you go, folks. Sanity from down under. Thank you for writing. Hug your husband, he’s entering a new kind of minefield.
And thanks for reading what I intended. The divisive thing is on the ascendancy. It’s subtle. It’s old. We know it. But, right now, it’s growing. It’s getting out of hand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there a gender war at the moment? I’m happy to call myself a feminist. I do have some sympathy for my husband though, who is feeling rather uncomfortable, about just being a bloke. Aren’t women just saying that some (but not all) men are pigs? Aren’t we just pointing out that because of vested interests, much bad behaviour has been tolerated? Sure, bad behaviour isn’t necessarily criminal behaviour, so keeping things in perspective is important. I guess somebody has to make the first move (in a fling, relationship, whatever). Thank goodness, most (sober) men will graciously back off when told ‘no thanks’. There does appear to be a societal problem though, that quite a few powerful (or wannabe powerful) men, do not think the same standards apply to them. I haven’t been following the Garrison Keeler situation, but like you, my husband is also concerned about ‘due process’. Fair point. Now gender equality – I think that is something that we all (both men and women) should be working toward.
Interesting….is there a gender war? The answer I think is, there is one in North America. My female and feminist friends in Europe and Asia don’t think there is but we seem to think so. It’s a hot skirmish at the very least and the men are being slaughtered. Is it deserved? For your basic rapist, perv and bully, most agree that it is. For your rude, oafish pig and boor, it is overkill but putting a little scare into them isn’t all bad. But for an old 92 year old Parkinson’s afflicted guy in a wheelchair or even an unwanted pitch of woo from a drunken but no-touch lout?, No. We need to cut men a bit of slack. No harm, no foul.
What constitutes harm is still a question but you get my point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do indeed get your point. 🙂
Who cares about thousands of children starving in Yemen…… on the more important side of life we have THIS media “special report”………
Garrison Keillor touched a woman’s bare back and has apologized. He says he was try to comfort her. Not yet known in what context.
I know. Seems she had a short blouse on and was leaning forward. He put his hand on her, touched her bare back. She recoiled and he apologized. Even if it was somewhat worse, what harm was done? What was the intention? Her next move? Hired a lawyer. Lawyers move? Asked for compensation. On refusal, employer contacted. How is that NOT terribly wrong?