lundi, décembre 19, 2016

Trump, les femmes blanches et le mépris de classe des féministes

C'est un euphémisme de dire que les féministes se sont trompé à propos de l'élection présidentielle américaine et du vote des femmes.

Ce n'est pas surprenant : en 2016, les féministes sont des pétasses bourgeoises, oisives, narcissiques et névrosées qui ont trouvé le féminisme comme moyen d'exprimer leur haine anti-viril et de faire parler d'elles.

Dans cette description, le mot le plus important, c'est « bourgeoises » : le féminisme est un luxe de désoeuvrées (même si elles en font un métier, c'est un métier qui ne sert à rien sauf flatter leur ego). On est féministe comme on était femme au foyer.

Les féministes ont oublié (n'ont jamais su ?) que les femmes ordinaires ont des pères, des fils, des maris, des amants, des frères et qu'elles ne partageaient peut-être pas leur vision du monde comme une guerre des sexes.

Mais ne vous inquiétez pas pour les féministes. Elles restent droites dans leurs bottes. Elles ont déjà commencé à ne pas comprendre et à ne pas tirer la leçon de la victoire de Trump. Tout va bien pour elles, elles continuent à être persuadées d'avoir raison.

Je vous laisse à cet article dévastateur :

How Women in Media Missed the Women’s Vote

They [les féministes à la mode dans les médias] had heads full of academic theory and millennial angst but little life experience with—and virtually no interest in—military wives from South Carolina or Walmart managers from Staten Island, who also happen to fall into the category “women.” Nor did the new luminaries or their bosses seem to notice that the latter group far outnumbered their own rarefied crowd. Luckily for them, when the 2016 election came along, it seemed designed by a goddess determined to make reality conform to their vision of it. Social media had already let loose a seething crowd of loutish young men who enjoy nothing more than taunting the popular girls; their tweets and posts, ranging from the obnoxious to the genuinely threatening, seemed to prove the worst about white male iniquity.


Gender-identity politics requires its practitioners to use the oppression of women as the organizing principle for interpreting the world. All issues can be understood as a version of this Manichean struggle—in the case of the 2016 election, between feminism and misogyny. Relying on a theory from Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, Goldberg argued that women were voting for Trump because they depended on their husbands and did what they were told. Both Lake and Goldberg failed to notice that “glass ceiling,” “harassment,” and even “equal pay” didn’t rank with the main sources of working-class discontent such as jobs, the cost of health-care premiums, and terrorism.

Working-class and other Trump-leaning women, much like their male counterparts, are well aware that media elites sneer at them (when they bother thinking about them). So great is their suspicion of their self-appointed betters that instead of being appalled by Trump stories, some assumed that the stories were planted. “I think this is the Clinton campaign,” Karen Diehl the co-owner of a southern Ohio insurance company and sometime Republican activist told me when I asked about the lurid Trump headlines. “The media wants her to win.”

In the end, the gender-identity politicos’ assumption that they were speaking for “women” only served to accentuate the class, education, and geographic divide that they already personified. The election’s aftermath does not suggest that they’re interested in reflecting on that divide. Instead of trying to find out why so many women failed to conform to their model of the world, they have burrowed back down into gender theory. Emily Crockett, Vox’s “staff writer on gender,” explained “Why Misogyny Won.” Buzzfeed’s Ann Helen Peterson lamented, “This is How Much America Hates Women.” As for Trump-voting women, they were obviously mindless and self-deluded. The election results reveal “internalized misogyny,” wrote New York’s Rebecca Traister, a phrase repeated on MSNBC by Jess McIntosh, director of communications for Emily’s List.

For pure self-delusion, no one could beat Clinton surrogate and Manhattan-raised, Oberlin-educated media darling Lena Dunham, the most famous of the gender experts. Dunham rued the “white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves.” She continued: “It wasn’t supposed to go this way. It was supposed to be her [Clinton’s] job. She worked her whole life for the job. It’s her job.”

Like her comrades in gender-identity politics, the Girls creator and star doesn’t know much about “women,” but she has a Ph.D. in privilege.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire