For some time now I’ve observed the outrageous statements of prominent males on the Left side of the political spectrum. Based on a growing amount of anecdotal evidence I’ve come to the following conclusion:
Many Left-leaning men disrespect Left-leaning women and hate conservative women.
IMO the recent travails of the truly pathetic Anthony Weiner provided a rich new source of evidence to support the first half of this theory. Evidence for the latter half can be observed in the constant attacks on Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, conservative pundits Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin, not to mention the seeming life missions of some male Leftists to destroy Sarah Palin.
Am I alone in this observation or have you also noticed countless examples of such bad behaviour over the years?
In a recent show, Boston talkshow host, Michael Graham, touched upon one half of the aforementioned theory:
Update: Commenter Mark kindly provided a link to the other half of the theory: Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin.
Islamists want their 72 virgins,
while the lefty males want their 72 harlots…
Just opposite sides of the same coin!
Man, I have enough trouble keeping one wife happy.
72 virgins or harlots would have to leave one completely exhausted and/or disease ridden.
A new Hollywierdo movie “Weinergate goes to Washington”.
TSAs will feel up your genitals under federal mandate and your congressman will send you his twittered genitals at taxpayer expense.
Well I guess Bill Clinton set the tone…
So when is the next congressional session “in the buff”?
Yep, no shame and no brains. And the elected representatives wonder why they are held in contempt?
Simply, because they manage to behave like a laughingstock. I gather this is what the 60s generation meant by ‘letting it all hang out’.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Someone else said this, but it is true – “no wonder women on the left hate men so much – look at their role models!!”
But more the point – can anyone imagine Todd Palin even thinking about doing something like this, not when Sarah has proven her ability with a gun!!
Elementary my dear Watson!
Part of that statement could be said of left-leaning women; they hate conservative women.
Do they disrespect left-leaning men?.Many of them do; they see the man as an appendage for either money or prestige not as a partner in a family.
I agree with the premise, but I’ll take another angle.
What I see on the Left is a cult of victim-ology rooted in hate(the hatred of humanity). I don’t think that it’s a hatred of women in particular, just hate across the board. So, whenever a victim feels victimized, they simply lash-out with the most hateful language that can be spewed.
We all hate, to some extent; but where the Left is special, is in their righteous indignation to all things they perceive as hate. Accompany this with an unexplainable belief in their own righteousness, and you get the bi-proxy victim brigade whose completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy, and patronizing behavior.
(l)iberalism is an ideology based in self-loathing. This ‘hatred of self’ inevitably leads to the hatred of all others, and limits that person’s ability to analyze anything without being skewed by said hatred. This ideology is very attractive to the unsuccessful and unattractive, and is no doubt THE major reason those on the Left hate all things beautiful and successful. These “men” the post speaks of are most often the losers in school that couldn’t get laid, couldn’t play sports, and have a bone to pick with those that could.
The only noteworthy item here (to me) is how we allowed these self-loathing a-holes to propagate the myth that THEY are the embodiment of all things good, and that those that oppose embody all that that’s evil.
“Hatred has long been a central pillar of leftist ideologies, premised as they are on trampling individual rights for the sake of a collectivist plan. Karl Marx boasted that he was “the greatest hater of the so-called positive.” In 1923, V.I. Lenin chillingly declared to the Soviet Commissars of Education, “We must teach our children to hate. Hatred is the basis of communism.” In his tract “Left-Wing Communism”, Lenin went so far as to assert that hatred was “the basis of every socialist and Communist movement.”
Given the -heinous- comments one regularly sees from the Left, I have to assume Anthony Weiner is absolutely run-of-the-mill for these clowns. They all instantly default to sexual innuendo of the lowest sort when crossed, misogyny and accusations of homosexuality feature prominently.
To me this is an indication that’s what is at the front of their brains 24/7, all their thinking is done by the Little General. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have much use for people like that. They’re not worth a damn on the job or off it, and you can’t trust them out of your sight.
If you want a cause for the certification craze sweeping modern business and government, that’s it. Too many Weiners in power who think everyone is as shiftless, perverted and untrustworthy as they are. They want a gold plated guarantee from a (sue-able) third party before they’ll hire anyone.
Can I ask you all to play psychologists for a moment? Imagine this scenario:
You’re a female friend of Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin. You are on the Left. The Weiner scandal breaks, where he humiliates himself and to a certain extent, his wife.
A week later, if you were asked about it, would you feel more anger towards Anthony Weiner or Paul Ryan?
From what I’ve read from several women on the Left, you’d likely be finding a way to defend Weiner and conversely feeling nothing but contempt and outrage about Paul Ryan. Am I wrong about this?!?
ask Whoopie.
“now was it his weiner weiner? ”
Leftest females have no expections of their men folk being ethical, moral or loyal to their mates. When let down by said men folk they coverup for them like they are addicts instead of suspected sexual deviants and missfits. Their treatment of Conservative females is grounded in envy, simply put we won’t date them-marry them or otherwise sleep with them. We are the females they can’t conquer so they settle for the above females who let them abuse them at will.
There may be a point here, but Graham is not the guy to make it. He’s on his third marriage, having recently dumped wife #2, who he called “The Warden” on his radio show, for a much younger #3. There are more misogynistic talk show hosts, but he’s up there.
@Rose — there was a very interesting blog post some months ago about why the left hates Sarah Palin that echoed pretty much the same sentiment. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Here you go: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/why_the_left_hates_sarah_palin.html
robert w – I think you’re right; they’d focus their hatred on Paul Ryan and see Weiner as a victim of the ‘right’..i.e., Breitbart.
That is, the mere fact that these photos came to light, might be seen as an aggressive action against Weiner..and his wife.
However, I’d bet that if Weiner was financially very wealthy, then, these same ladies might be encouraging divorce and a large settlement.
You are wrong about disrespecting leftist women; they hate them just as much. I offer as evidence the Hilary nutcrackers. The bile is simply reserved for the members of the victim group that wander off the reservation, or to put it another way “don’t know their place”.
About the left, Indiana Homez writes, “This ‘hatred of self’ inevitably leads to the hatred of all others . . .” That immediately rang a bell for me.
I think Indiana is altogether correct on this one. The second Great Commandment, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, is written in full knowledge of the idea of the “hatred of self”, which the left practises all the time. It’s no wonder these people are so hostile to the Judeo-Christian teachings about love, self, and neighbour, which are the polar opposite of theirs. E.g., In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus makes the point that one’s neighbour is everyone, not those whom one likes or with whom one feels comfortable, but anyone who could benefit from one’s help (all of us, in one way or another)—even with no chance of payback for the helper.
Despite the fact that lefties think they are the “sine qua non” of compassion—because they want everyone (but themselves: DEMOCRAT Tim Geithner, need I say more?) to pay more taxes to help people at arms’ length—they do NOT understand the nature of love and respect. One cannot love and respect others if one lacks personal integrity, which means an understanding, in a humble way, of one’s own worthiness. Such an understanding leads one to set high standards for oneself. (Those standards aren’t always met—we all have feet of clay—but holding them tends to moderate one’s behaviour in a positive way. Democrats have given up on moral standards altogether: hmmm . . . what happens then?)
In general, lefties have a false sense of superiority. In fact, they’re impostors: hollow people, who pretend to love others, and who, because they let themselves off the moral hook, know, in their heart of hearts, that they’re not worthy. Their destructive behaviour is projection.
Kyrie eleison.
The entire liberal-feminist movement hinges upon classifying all men as boorish, brainless, pond-scum sucking pigs.
Liberal men are just eagerly fulfilling that promise. They treat liberal women like cr*p because liberal women have taught them they’re expected to treat women like cr*p. They hate conservative women because we eschew the liberal-feminist goal of turning women into men and men into eunuchs.
Believe me, it’s been my experience than when a liberal man says he’s okay with a successful career woman, it’s not so much because he’s a supportive feminist, it’s because he’s a leech who doesn’t want to get a real job.
But liberal feminists won’t care how bad these men treat them so long as they toe the party line (abortion being #1 issue they must support).
Thanks Mark.
Beaneater
You got that right, with Larry King as president of the club.
Even when confronted with the evidence of their political failures, by and large, liberal women (and men) would rather eat a bowl of wax than admit that their entire world-view has been a part of their unhappiness.
Just my quick thoughts.
Quoting the left:
“We know they’re bastards, but they’re OUR bastards”.
Thanks Mark for that link. I read every word of Robin of Berkely’s article and it must be so. How else can you explain this.
shawn, more people should read Lenin’s speeches. A lot of what takes place in our educational and political world can be understood when seen through Lenin’s speeches.
“Male Leftist”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?
.
.
There is some very good thinking here. And, the concepts can likely be applied on either side of the US/CAN border in a more general sense: that of a culture-hate and disrespect, which expresses as a laxity in continental defence, an exaggerated devotion towards the “green” (and climate change), the “organic”, and the all-pervading, insidious notion that cultures are equally worthy.
.
.
Edward Teach….. yes it is.
However the conservatives often have a painful urge to explain everything in long running sentences, while missing the targeted audience.
People think about it: Many Left-leaning men disrespect women …. so many other woman. It does say nothing nor appeal to anything.
From the point of old fashion propaganda simple equations would be more useful: leftist man = impotent, beta, indecisive, insecure, cry baby, etc……
The poor little girls in the feminist movement need Big Daddy government to save them from themselves.
Well, Beatrice, Kate says “we’re winning” re. the global warming nonesense. Whether we’re winning the cuture wars in a larger way is a different question.
If you wanted to invent a bogeywoman for the left you couldn’t do better than Sarah Palin. She’s beautiful (it’s been noted that many leftist women are very unattractive, even the ones with raw material to work with, they manage somehow), she has a happy marriage, she didn’t go to the Ivy League, she hunts and has a regional accent, she didn’t abort her baby even though she knew he had Down’s (many women have had abortions “for my career”, and they were never governor of anything), they call her stupid and yet she refuses to be stupid… Oh, she burns them.
And in my experience most “progressive” men are very sexist. It’s something to do with the consequence-free bonkathon they so desperately insist life must be; I’ve long noted that when men like, say, Philip Roth (whom I do respect greatly as an author) go “politically incorrect” (you daredevil you) they never take on gays, or (God forbid) Muslims, or race politics except in the most oblique kind of way; it’s always women. The low-hanging fruit of the PC Totem-pole.
lookout said: “even with no chance of payback for the helper.”
Interestingly enough, this is a revelation that I’ve had in the last few years. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m much happier expecting nothing back from those I assist. I help because I want to help, and I take joy in that. Everything else that comes is just icing on the cake.
Although newcomer Beatrice identifies herself as “one of us”, she seems to be upset at SDA writers because we’re not being nice to lefties. Boo-hoo, Bea! I find her objections disingenuous, contradictory, insincere, and plain implausible.
Beatrice writes, among other howlers, “In interests of objectivity [sic] – i.e., trying to get past the echo-chamber-self-validating-hyperventiliating [sic]- I’ve seen precious little evidence [sic] of a left-wing ‘hate’ of Palin [sic], except for the endless [sic] references [sic] to it on blogs like this.”
On what planet has Beatrice been living? The well documented hatred towards Sarah Palin from the left—talk about “dehumanizing” someone—has been vitriolic, vicious (including the despicable attacks on her children, including a toddler with Down Syndrome), and persistent. If Beatrice has “seen precious little evidence of a left-wing ‘hate’ of Palin”, it’s because she hasn’t been looking/listening—or is incapable of processing information accurately.
E.g., I Googled “Attacks on Sarah Palin” and in 0.16 seconds, 46 700 000 accounts were available. Off the top of my head, after the left made a BIG DEAL about Republican bad behaviour and the “need” for politicians to act in a more civilized manner—the left is intimate with uncivil, hypocritical behaviour: it’s their main weapon—Sarah Palin was INDECENTLY blamed for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords because, during the recent election, she had apparently used a congressional map with “crosshairs”—they were draughtsman’s markings—on it. Hmm . . . I assume the unobservant/ill informed Beatrice wouldn’t be aware that the Democrats beat Palin to it (by six years!) with the Democratic National Committee’s 2004 map with targets—on Republican districts—and the caption, “Behind Enemy Lines”. By any stretch of the imagination, Beatrice is an unreliable witness and no help at all to the non-progressive cause she claims to support.
It’s interesting that Beatrice seems to suffer from the usual left-wing maladies: 1) the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time, and 2) an inability to admit the truth when it might risk giving any credit to the opposition: 1) She worries about SDAers “dehumanizing” people on the left—which is actually the left’s chief weapon against the right (see Alinsky’s rules), and 2) Beatrice writes of Palin’s “inability to answer some very substantial questions, and for never giving a press conference” while ignoring the fact that—wait for it!—Palin’s not a politician these days, and that the most powerful politician in the world—Obama—is actually the one guilty as charged! (Only recently has he given more press conferences, which are scripted/teleprompted and managed to the nth degree).
What SDAers are doing here is naming the enemy: that’s the first step in DEFEATING—yes, that’s a military term, and I use it happily—the left. It seems that Beatrice wants those of us on the right to be returned to the politically correct box the left has made for us. When we step out to call a spade a spade, folks like Beatrice get all upset. In the past, we’d jump right back into our box, thus neutralizing our attacks. Not any more! So, whose side is Beatrice really on? She hasn’t noticed that the right is no longer willing to be bullied and brow beaten by our opponents on the left. E.g., Fox, SUN, Levant, Steyn, Breitbart—Sarah Palin!—are pushing back, hard and unrepentantly.
Get with it, Beatrice. The game’s changed and your Pollyanna act falls very flat. If you’re really interested in shaming people into behaving in a more civilized manner—and, by lefty standards, SDAers have the manners of the participants at a Victorian tea party—go to where the real beasts are: at the lefty blogs and the alphabet MSM. Oh, wait, they’re lefties and are immune to feelings of shame. Anyway, Beatrice, non-lefties have moved on and your hypocritical shaming game’s not going to work here.
I’ve seen precious little evidence of a left-wing ‘hate’ of Palin
~Beatrice
Google: -Gabriel Giffords+Sarah Palin- and you’ll get a real eye opener.
Just a drop in the bucket of Leftwing hatred of Sarah Palin but the display of it in that particular instance is obvious, explicit, and revealing even to someone who must have been hiding under a rock during the 2 weeks of that single episode of Palin hatred.
lookout, I was composing my comment when yours showed up before mine.
I didn’t see your comment, which is excellent and says it all.
Thank you.
Oz, you’re welcome.
Here’s part of a column at American Thinker about the left and Sarah (Beatrice, you should read it):
June 13, 2011
Barracuda Snakecharmer Sarah and the Mob
By James Lewis
“If you’re not laughing along with Sarah Palin’s playing Gotcha! with the media, you’re not paying attention.
“Sarah Barracuda is playing the press for suckers, and they hate it. But they can’t they leave the story alone. Result: weeks of excited headline coverage, free publicity galore, right up her alley. The media mob are cutting their noses to spite their faces.
“I don’t know if we have the sleaziest and most corrupt media in American history — maybe in human history? — but they all deserve a Pulitzer for Aggravated Mendacity. (That means “lying,” if any of them are trying to read this). . . .”
“. . . Obama has a mobster’s control over the media. They know they will get hurt if they don’t click their heels and go Hail Hussein! So they do it.
“When Obama had Osama killed the media burst out in loud Hosannahs! like some grooving gospel choir. But you know they did it on command. These people salivate all over Obama’s trouser crease whenever he rings the bell, like Pavlov’s dog. They’ve actually said so.
“So is Sarah Barracuda really Sarah the snake-charmer? She certainly has them hypnotized. For three whole years they’ve told us how much they hate her, but they can’t stop giving her headlines.
“It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of vipers. Somewhere down in Hades, H.L. Mencken is having fits of the giggles. Mencken was an honest journalist; but we have no Henry Louis Mencken today.
“All we have are JourNOlists. ”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/barracuda_snakecharmer_sarah_and_the_mob.html
lookout, I know you’ll like this:
http://tinyurl.com/3m3kobv
Enemies and allies
In identifying the enemy, it is crucial to distinguish the enemy: the collectivist/statist ruling class and its partisans in the media, academia, and rent-seeking crony capitalist industries and financial institutions, from the electorate who support enemy politicians. We should view those voters not as enemies, but allies we haven’t yet recruited. Most voters pay little attention to politics and have little appreciation for the consequences, social and economic, of policy choices. This is not so much due to laziness, but rather rational ignorance: since a single vote has a negligible chance of influencing the outcome of an election, a rational voter will spend a negligible amount of time investigating the candidates and researching the consequences of the policies they advocate.
Consequently, elections often turn on the amount of money candidates can raise, the extent they can attack their opponents with negative advertising, their hair styles, and what party the parents of the voter preferred, as opposed to substantive issues. You may find this dismaying, but there is abundant evidence that this is the fact. In addition, enemy occupation of education and media ensures that the bias of voters who do not choose to independently inform themselves will be toward enemy candidates. This was the premise of an underappreciated 2008 book which breathlessly and approvingly forecast the calamity the recent enemy resurgence has brought upon us.
These uninformed and unengaged voters are not the enemy, but is it their votes which bring the enemy to power. So we must approach them as potential allies, to whom we must explain the ultimate consequences of the policies of the enemy to themselves and their families, and why it is in their own self-interest to defeat the enemy. The present situation is sufficiently dire that one need no longer appeal to long-term arguments such as Hayek’s in The Road to Serfdom: the apocalypse so ardently desired by the enemy, as it will present the ultimate crisis to be exploited to secure their power, is now just a few years away, and this is evident to anybody acquainted with the numbers.
Our goal must be to defeat the enemy. In a democratic society, this means apprising those who vote the enemy into power of their true nature, breaking the hold of the enemy media on the populace, and reversing enemy infiltration of education. The enemy strategy depends upon an uninformed, unengaged, and passive electorate. We must turn this around by communicating, by all means possible, the true nature of the enemy and the cataclysmic near-term consequences of their triumph.
I’ve seen precious little evidence of a left-wing ‘hate’ of Palin
~Beatrice
Um, hi. Welcome to planet Earth. How long have you been touring the galaxy?