House of Eratosthenes

Prelutsky is scaring the dickens out of me. Which I’m sure is a delight to some opinionated people out there who, as opinionated as they may be, aren’t going to be willing or able to say why they take delight in my consternation:

There is a trial balloon, or at least a rumor, floating around that suggests there just might be a Hillary Clinton/Michelle Obama run for the White House in 2016. Some are actually referring to it as a dream ticket. More like a nightmare. But I am willing to make book it doesn’t happen. Anyone who actually believes Mrs. Obama would play second fiddle to the honky bitch probably thinks that if that idea doesn’t pan out, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny might consider making a run for the White House. At least those two seem to like each other.

Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama make a “dream ticket.” I’m still at a loss to figure out what anybody sees, by way of positive characteristics, in either one. Let me guess, something to do with being super-duper smart and/or not “tak[ing] any [slang for used food] from anybody.”

I find this annoying for two reasons: One, what follows these often-repeated homilies, can be assured to be missing any specifics. I realize everything cannot be imbued with specifics. But I’m annoyed when these sound bites are given a sense of urgency, or enthusiasm, and are still missing the specifics. Especially when the specifics are so badly needed. We’ve had a long time, by now, to see some evidence of how smart Hillary Clinton is, and almost as long to see how smart Michelle Obama is. To date, the only example either has been able to bring, is by way of which fellow they respectively chose to marry.

I can’t think of a single job I’d want either one of them to do for me.

The other reason I find it to be annoying is that these two pushy broads, both of them, are…well, they’re annoying. They both seem to be working at it. I don’t like watching them or listening to them. If I had to make an appointment with either one, to have a conversation with them or simply to hear them speak, I would dread it and think of every excuse in the world to miss out on it.

And that seems to be the appeal. There is a template here, and the template doesn’t seem to be put together to impress women, but to impress men like me. Negatively. Shrill, unpleasant women who fit in the template, end up with this large and enthused following, because they are likely to give men headaches. No other characteristic is required in this template, no is any other characteristic needed. Annoy men. That’s good enough. Is that really what’s going on here?

And who is in the following? Who is churning up all this excitement over the idea that the latest female pol or celeb is repellent to men?

I know people don’t like it when I notice these things. Throughout the years, I’ve shown a tendency to get into a lot of trouble for noticing things that aren’t supposed to be noticed. But you know, Hillary Clinton seems to put an awful lot of energy and effort into being a shrill, unpleasant bitch. Ditto for Michelle O. To ignore that they’re trying to do it, seems itself to be impolite in its own way; when someone tries so hard to get something done, isn’t noticing their efforts the very least we can do?

It works the other way, I notice. If a woman, real or fictitious, shows some man-appeal for whatever reason there is a predominant view in our contemporary culture that this is a liability against her, and an imperative exists that she should be treated like something toxic. Sarah Palin should never be heard from again. As far as cartoons go, Wonder Woman and Lara Croft both should cover up their legs, which since I live in California, I find pretty amusing…you busybodies have any idea how many real pairs of beautiful female legs we can see down here every year? It’s completely awesome. And the cartoon characters also have to shrink down their boobs.

There are a lot of exceptions to this. And I find the exceptions even more fascinating: The trend seems to be toward stupidity. The Kardashian sisters can show as much thigh, and strut around with buxom bosoms, in prominence, to their hearts’ content. There is some simmering resentment against this, but it is muted. Their fame is not appreciated, among many, but among those many the fame is at least accepted as a fact of life. Not like, for example, Sarah Palin’s fame, which seems to be regarded by several among that same crowd as an actual problem that has to get solved with some sense of urgency. Palin is told to “go away”; the Kardashian sisters are not told that.

It seems to me that the typical straight man might appreciate looking at Snooki, KimK, Jessica Simpson, et al, but we wouldn’t very much like to be in the same room with any of them. We might like to screw them. We wouldn’t want to date them. I notice a consistent pattern wherein, where that situation exists, the muting-down of the resentment over the airhead-idiot-girl’s good looks, inevitably follows. Big boobs are okay. Boobs with brain, that’s a disaster.

If the woman is good-looking and might be a decent male-fantasy in the sack, but also is someone the man might like to take out for breakfast afterward because she knows enough to hold up her end of a conversation, she still might get a pass if she has the “don’t take any crap from anybody” thing going on. Like for example, Angelina Jolie. Not exactly my cup of tea, but there’s no denying she’s a good looking woman. But women don’t resent her or want her to go away. She might steal their husbands; the husbands might like getting stolen, might appreciate being around Angelina; but while the deed’s being done, the vision seems to be, Angelina would refuse to take bottom position. So there is redemption if there is a perception of female dominance.

The fictional characters, Tomb Raider and Wonder Woman, can’t bring this because in their case, at least classically, they have very tastefully been developed as asexual beings. Today we think of that as “it isn’t really established what their preference is, they might be lesbians or bisexual.” Sadly, that is about as close as we can come, today, to understanding “it has nothing to do with sex.” Yeah yeah, I know, Wonder Woman was originally a bondage fantasy. But after she gained momentum as a comic book character, she became something that today we evidently can’t allow: A heroine, who doesn’t have that kind of a social life because she’s a product developed for little kids — who happens to be beautiful. Beauty without sex. I guess we just can’t understand that now. So wear long pants, Wonder Woman, and shrink down those boobs.

We are not, it goes without saying, getting rid of any mention or thought of sex. We’re not even doing that for the benefit of little kids. Our societal beef seems to be against manifestations of hetero appeal.

Sometimes when you inspect things awhile, you find they don’t exist as isolated instances, but as extensions of something else. I’m starting to see this particular phenomenon that way. Consider that in our society, if you are an atheist then you have an absolute right to be one, and we have seen much agitation toward the preservation of that liberty. But of course it doesn’t stop there. No atheists are being forced to change their system of belief, for example, because a street has a certain name, but they obviously feel like they have some rights that are being trampled. Such a right must be: If I believe one way, I do not want to see any evidence anywhere that anybody else believes differently.

From all I have seen and heard and all the patterns I’ve detected, that must be what this is about. “I do not want to see evidence, anywhere, that men find women attractive.” There is much contention caused by this today, in this age in which we’re supposed to be so concerned about things being contentious, and wanting things to be less so. Well you know, I don’t think we really want that. If we wanted things to be less contentious, I think this pseudo-right a lot of people seem to think they have, not to see evidence of things, would now and then encounter a rebuke, or at least a challenge. That isn’t happening. What’s happening is we’re seeing the phony right asserted, more and more often, in more and more things. It shows up in a desire that women who obviously have a lot of appeal, should “go away.” Get out of here and take your infernal man-appeal with you! It isn’t the pleasing face or the supple thighs or the heaving bosoms, if it was that simple then Kim Kardashian would be getting chased off the stage too. It’s fear; fear of a good example. Fear that someone might start thinking “I wish X could be more like Y.” Simple jealousy. What your loyal old dog might be feeling, the night you come home with a new baby kitten.

So Michelle and Hillary might be a “dream ticket,” to some. This isn’t a bad thing because of the who, as in, who finds this to be a dream ticket. The peril is in the why. For quite awhile now we’ve had politicians being elevated to offices of real power, based on the kind of fear I’ve been inspecting and probing here. Doesn’t seem to be working out too well, I’d say. And, acknowledging that I’m not the focus group being chased by this dream-harpy ticket, nevertheless I’d have to expect that over the long term, things wouldn’t work out any better there either. Fear is not a good motivator for choosing leaders, especially leaders who are supposed to have real influence.

I don’t know much, Morgan, but I think I’ve got a decent theory on this one. Because I’ve noticed a curious fact: The “Sarah Palin must go away / Hilary Clinton is so wonderful” crowd are, themselves, almost invariably married.

These are women who, sometime in their early twenties, embraced politics as a religion. Then they hit their late twenties and, as women do, they wanted to get married and start families. But they had to obey the tenets of their faith, and so they went out and found the kind of skinny-yet-pudgy androgynous betaboy chump who does his shopping at Whole Foods and embraces, in all apparent sincerity, a nontraditional gender-neutral civil commitment ceremony with a Wiccan shaman as officiant and donations to “marriage equality” organizations in lieu of gifts.

Now they’re in their thirties, and stuck with these wusses forever. Even if they divorce, well, what are the options for shrill careerist bulldozers with three kids and an SUV full of “well behaved women rarely make history” bumper stickers?*

Sarah Palin et al are very public reminders that choices have consequences, and that even in this day and age, the vast majority of men will respond to a request / order to accompany one to the Planned Parenthood fundraiser with “no thanks, I’m going to sit right here on this couch and watch a ballgame and have a beer. Probably two or three.”

In short: the kinds of “men” who find Hillary Clinton wonderful and Sarah Palin awful are, in short, losers. And their wives know it. That’s why Sarah Palin has to go away.
.
.
.
.
*in my misspent younger middle age I did some online dating. Had some pretty good success with it, too, and would almost-unhesitatingly recommend it to just about anyone. Except… maybe it’s just because I live near a college, but sweet Jeebus, you wouldn’t believe some of the things gals put on their profiles. Stuff like: “I’m a brainy, outgoing woman who enjoys good wine, good coffee, and hates Republicans.” I exaggerate only slightly.
- Severian | 04/01/2013 @ 09:02
You’re in the gold here, Sev. And especially with the “MUST go away.” It’s not “should” or “I wish you would,” but MUST. I see it on Twitter with Dana Loesch – she “needs” to shut up or die or go away or a million other ugly things. And it isn’t really just about what she says or believes, so much as who she is – and how she chooses to live according to what she says and believes.
- nightfly | 04/02/2013 @ 11:17
[…] Severian has noticed what he calls “a curious fact”: […]
- dustbury.com » Battleaxes for peace | 04/05/2013 @ 04:56

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The Appeal of Unappealing WomenMonday, April 1st, 2013

The Appeal of Unappealing Women
Monday, April 1st, 2013