Vincent J. Curtis
11 Oct 2016
From the very first Republican primary debate, the strategy
against Donald Trump was to appeal to the prejudices of college educated
women. One of the important
“demographics” in recent presidential elections has been one segment of women
voters or another, from “soccer moms,” to lonely “Julia,” now to
“college-educated women.” The vote of
the college-educated woman in the suburbs of Philadelphia and of Denver is
supposed to determine the outcome of the presidential election.
A college education does not impart wisdom. A college education almost certainly imparts
cultural attitudes and outlook that are different from the attitudes and
outlooks that one would obtain if one spent that time in wage-paying employment
instead attending school. And the nature
of the wage-paying employment would also influence the nature of the attitude
and outlook.
The nature of a college education nowadays leaves one,
depending on the course taken, more knowledgeable and less mature than had one
spent that time in employment. And if
the college degree was in one of those Grievance-Studies programs, then one is
bereft even of knowledge, and one only gained a college-acquired attitude and
outlook.
An important difference between a woman who spent four years
in college and another who spent four years in employment is in their attitudes
towards men. College-educated women have
the expectation that men are tame.
Working women understand that men are self-controlled. There is a difference. Believing in tameness means that departures
from tameness is unexpected, outside of the norm. Self-control, on the other hand, is a matter
of degree. Self-control, by its nature,
is not absolute. One degree of self-control
may fall outside the boundary of “tameness,” while another, not. An example will follow.
At the first Republican primary debate, in August 2015,
Megyn Kelly put the first question to Donald Trump, and attempted to portray
him as being abusive towards women. Her
evidence was a few instances in which Trump spoke harshly of particular women
in particular circumstances. “Only Rosie
O’Donnell,” Trump famously parried.
Recovering, the humorless Kelly continued to bore in with a logically
unsustainable attack. As was shown in a
previous posting, it could be argued on the same grounds that because Trump was
kind and loving towards his wife and his daughter, he therefore was kind and
loving towards “women,” and we would have a situation in which Trump was both
kind and loving and abusive towards “women.”
The solution to this paradox is specificity: some women and some men are treated one way,
and other men and other women are treated another, depending upon
circumstances. The outcome of the
exchange was not pretty, as the relentless Megyn Kelly finally drew upon
herself the kind of attack from Trump that she hoped would establish her point
about Trump’s abusiveness towards “women.”
It occurred to practically no one that Trump treated women
the same as he treated men, and if women’s equality was to mean something, that
is exactly as he should do.
A source in the media finally released the now infamous
hot-mic locker-room exchange between Donald Trump and Billy Bush, and it
created a hysteria in the media. This
incident illustrates the difference between tame and self-controlled. In private, Trump and Bush exhibited one
degree of self-control and when they stepped outside of the bus and into the
public eye they took on a different degree.
College educated women were supposed to be appalled to discover the
difference, which is not supposed to exist.
They may continue to be misled by the hysteria of bed-wetting,
sanctimonious men.
Apparently, ISIS cutting off heads and burning people alive,
the Middle East in flames, terrorist incidents occurring all over the world,
law and order breaking down in America, the economy being stagnant, health care
insurance rates going through the roof, and illegal immigration out of control
is supposed to mean zilch compared to Donald Trump’s language in this instance,
which is supposed to be representative.
Is that stupid, or what?
As I have pointed out previously, no one has been able to
produce a women who has accused Trump of rape or sexual harassment, and many
women who have worked for Trump have come forward to say that he was always
thoroughly professional. All the media
can come up with are words; they have no deeds.
And it is words that are supposed to separate college-educated women
from Trump and automatically give them to Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton represents the status quo. She offers nothing but boilerplate solutions that simply do not work. Her
words demonstrate a contempt for those who oppose her. She has lied to the American people, to
Congress, and to the civil courts; she and has enriched herself through the
sale of the favors of her office. She
looks upon the Oval Office as a personal Eldorado. Her judgement has been questioned by
Democrats. In both word and deed,
Hillary Clinton is the suspect candidate.
Yet, college educated women going to be separated from Donald Trump by
taking advantage of their prejudices – either things they failed to learn at
college, or things they learned at college that turn out not to be so. By being driven into a hysteria.
There is still time in the election for college educated
women to get a grip, to put things into perspective, to separate the important
from the unimportant, and to make a decision not based upon emotion. To be wise and expedient, in other words.
The Megyn Kelly’s of the world – the secret partisans who
have their own agenda – are not going to change or reconsider. The election may hang on the demographic of
self-absorbed college-educated woman, those who have no sense of the good of
the community as a whole, think of little outside of their personal feelings,
and are easily driven into hysteria. It
may hang on the votes of cossetted women who just now discovered the difference
between the real world and one they have been inhabiting. And that is a scary thing.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment