Last night I wrote:
The establishment right, sharing zip codes, baristas, and beds with the left, are past-masters at confirming and enforcing New Thought Control Rules the left just initiated five minutes ago.
What to know what massive changes the left imposed on society ten years ago? Just look at the things the right is currently enforcing the rules on -- and that tells you what victories the left won a decade past.
Basically, the right has a fetish about enforcing rules, even rules they violently disagreed with ten years ago. But as soon as the left makes it a rule that has a bare plurality of the country's support, the right is Ready to Die for That Hill.
The hills the right is ready to die for seem to be only the hills that the left itself has built and fortified.
I first noticed the creeping Social Justice Warriorism in the case of Sarah Palin.
There were various claims made that the left was attacking her because she was a woman. To some extent, that was true; as a woman with a magnetic charisma, she posed a threat to the left's coalition-wrangling efforts. Therefore it was especially urgent that she be destroyed.
However, the attacks against her were usually not "genderized," as the Social Justice Warriors would say. The attacks were animated by her gender -- or, more accurately, the threat Sarah Palin posed to their political lock on women -- but they usually did not mention gender.
Yet some on the right -- encouraged by Sarah Palin -- began claiming they did.
It began with some remark Obama made about Sarah Palin trying to refashion herself as a moderate or something, where he said "you can't put lipstick on a pig" or something like that.
There was suddenly a hue and cry -- they're saying she's a pig! Because she's a woman!
Was he really saying this?
Note in this situation, there are two ways to make an issue of someone's words.
The first is "What if a Republican said it?" Here you'd argue that if a Republican said this, the left would claim, disingenuously, that the statement was for some reason Forbidden Words, a Speechcrime. And then one can argue the left should suffer the penalty it would itself impose on others.
Note, however, that this argument does not actually buy into the claim being made by the left. It is saying that, since this is the left's rule, pushed by the left, used to hunt scalps for the left, the left should be the first to observe it. The left made this Procrustian bed; they should be the ones most willing to lie down in it, to check it for comfort and fit.
Actually, this argument is, implicitly, an argument against the Left's claim here, because the argument being made, though usually not stated, runs like this: Since the people pushing this bullshit rule are unwilling to abide by it themselves, it's not really any sort of ethically-sound "rule" at all; it is simply a partisan attack selectively applied to political enemies to disadvantage them. As it's no "rule" at all, the "rule," and the left pushing for this bullshit, should be disregarded and indeed derided as dishonest and special-pleading.
The other argument that could be made -- and in fact frequently was made by the right -- was thatthis really is an "attack on women," and women really do deserve to be "protected" against such affronts to their feminine dignity like saying "you can't put lipstick on a pig," and, generally, that women are owed a Special Level of Protection just like any other "minority." (And note: Women are the majority.)
Claiming that it really is an egregious Speechcrime to say of a woman's political claims that you "can't put lipstick on a pig" is exactly like saying of a political plan put forth by an Asian, "the chink in the armor is the problem of who pays for all this."
Or of saying of a budget put forward by a black politician, "the budget is too niggardly as regards defense spending."
Yes, you certainly could jump up and down like a retard screaming that "chink in the armor" is a dog whistle intended to disparage the Asian politician (even if he is of Japanese descent, and thus is not even covered by the "chink" slur), and yes, you could choose to show off your illiteracy and claim "niggardly" is derived from the slur for blacks, but you'd be an idiot and a special-pleading, identity-politics liberal Cultural Marxist for doing so.
And the right used to say just that.
Until Sarah Palin began encouraging her supporters to brand every attack on her as an attack on girls, and began pitching her political appeal, and directing her political endorsements, to women above all others.
I first noticed this going on at Twitchy, I'm sad to say, because I used to like that site. Some of the writers there would take a leftist's insult or words which could be construed as having a double-meaning and use the first sort of argument -- What if a Republican had said this?
Fine. That is perfectly fair to do. Certainly the left would club you over the head with such an attack. It's completely reasonable to ask why the left does not abide by the rules they impose on others.
But a lot of writers there began crossing the line to explicitly endorsing the left's "rule," not just asking "What if a Republican had said this?," but arguing (implicitly) that the Marcottes and Valentis of the world were actually right all along, and women are in fact owed special protections not extended to men, and damnit, they wanted those protections themselves.
This spread further than Republican (or "conservative") women, of course. The left tried to trigger men's protective instincts about women for years, asking "What if this was your daughter?" and so on. Trying to cast Feminism's goal of casting men as infected by "Toxic Masculinity" as some kind of "family-friendly, pro-Christian-morality" measure.
Note that half of Republican policy consists of endorsing and enacting the policy goals of the left, simply by recasting them with a (slight) pretense of a conservative basis -- oh we can have universal health-care, as long as they're based on "market-based" solutions, and oh, we can a bit of industrial-policy protectionism in the inner cities, by just calling them "Enterprise Zones" and pretending this is a "free market solution."
The right is forever making up "conservative" reasons why it must now pursue the left's agenda as its own.
Little by little, "conservative" men began buying into this. Slowly they began embracing the idea that, because they'd sired a daughter themselves, suddenly any man expressing a sexual interest in a completely unrelated and random woman was, kinda-sorta, by some alchemy not precisely explained, insulting the dignity of his daughter.
The left succeeded in convincing many men of the right that their machismo and natural instincts to protect those close to them meant that they must, in order to be a man, shriek over the idea of a dude having sexual thoughts about any woman.
And thus, the birth of the Dad Avenger, an otherwise conservative-leaning dad who'd been seduced into endorsing, in major part, the feminist agenda of speech and thought patrolling.
I sort of understand how one's natural protective instincts for one's actual flesh and blood could be leveraged this way, but I do have to note this -- it's become a meme on the right to mock the left for "not knowing where babies come from."
When the left claims that "transwomen" (read: men) should be included in any law about pregnancy or abortion, the right gleefully mocks, "I guess the people who Love Science don't understand that you need a womb and eggs to become pregnant."
I have to ask these same people: Where do you think babies come from?
Because, prior to the physical action of sex -- assuming this is a consensual situation, which is usually is -- there is a physical attraction, that is, a sexual attraction, on the part of one or both of the parties who will ultimately consummate their sexual desires.
Where do you think babies are going to come from if this sexual desire (which, get this, sometimes also affects women as well as men) is effectively outlawed as anti-social affrontery to the dignity of women?
And, as to the Dad Avengers, the well-meaning conservative men who have been convinced by the left that simply because they themselves had a daughter, they must now shriek and glower over any other man expressing any interest in any other woman:
Do you denounce yourselves as well? You know, your wife was also "someone's daughter," and yet I imagine -- ideally -- you had sexual urges pointed in her direction. I assume -- if this a more ideal situation -- your sexual interest in your wife is not wholly directed towards childbirth and other such enduring, life-affirming goals; I assume that there might be a little somethn'-somethin' of sexual gratification on your own end too.
And if you say, "Yes, but I married her and treat her with respect" and et cetera, um, yes, but was she the first woman you ever slept with?
I imagine most of the Dad Avengers have slept with other women before their wives. Did theyalways have childbirth and marriage on their minds when doing so?
Do they curse themselves for having sullied Someone's Daughters in pursuing their own selfish desire for sexual gratification?
When they watch porn -- or ogle a cheerleader -- or have an unchaste memory of a previous girlfriend -- do they curse themselves for thinking impure thoughts about Someone's Daughter?
I don't think they do. I think this is all bullshit. I think people are really, really good -- amazing, actually -- at finding reasons to judge and criticize others, thus reducing the target's status andimplicitly rasing the status of the person doing the judging, and yet somehow managing to completely forget that he himself is guilty of the same sins. Either he conveniently forgets this, or he invents a quickie explanation as to how it was "different" or that there were extenuating circumstances.
A lot of people love living in a place called Pretendistan. Pretendistan is a place where we can pretend that No Honorable Man ever has any sexual thoughts about a woman, but whose sexual drive is employed for one reason only: to obey the command of God Himself to be fruitful and multiply.
And if he finds himself up at three a.m. one night masturbating furiously to an xhamster video about lesbian cheerleaders: Well, he'll excuse that away as "just practicing," so to speak, for actual procreative sex. Just keeping his hand in, I suppose.
And definitely no worries that those two women going down on each other like sharks with big tits who haven't eaten in a month are Somebody's Daughter.
And meanwhile "conservative" women who've bought into the idea of Pretendistan want no man ever to have sexual thoughts about other women -- you know, their sexual competitors, the ones they're in direct competition with for status and mating opportunities -- and do not want any man to ever have sexual thoughts about themselves.
Except, of course, The Cute Boys.
The Cute Boys, the ones they actually have sexual thoughts about themselves, are not only invited to have sexual thoughts about them, but, coming soon, I'm sure we'll be hearing they're morally required to have such thoughts.
Anything Princess wants, Princess gets.
Are you allowed to have sexual thoughts about a woman? Well, if you're Not Cute, the answer is no. If you are Cute, the answer is you cannot have sexual thoughts about anyone except Princess.
If you have sexual thoughts about a woman who doesn't look like Princess, then that is, implicitly, saying Princess doesn't cut it in your own private mental sexual marketplace, and that makes Princess feel bad, and that insults her dignity as a woman.
I don't live in Pretendistan. I live in America, or whatever the fuck is left of its ruins.
I do not pretend that men do not have sexual thoughts about women, or, let's be real here ladies, that women do not have sexual thoughts about men.
Often without their consent!, if you can believe such an outrage.
Now I'm usually not one of those men women have sexual thoughts about, so I guess I could and should shriek "I'm offended!" and scream that women must have no sexual thoughts about any other man (so that I am myself not disadvantaged in the mating race), but again, I choose to live in the real world, where people might be attracted to people more attractive than me, and where sometimes people I'm not attracted to are attracted to me, and I don't feel the need or the right to shriek about this State of Unfair Affairs because I believe in freedom of thought and speech, and I ergo do not patrol the minds of others for Forbidden Thoughts, nor silence the mouths of others from speaking Forbidden Words.
And most of the right used to believe this too.
Until they became Social Justice Warriors, and decided that they mostly agreed with the elite, taste-making class of the urban educated (white) left (and go figure on that one, huh?!), and really just had a couple of tweaks here and there to the List of Officially Outlawed Thoughts and Words.
I've got two words for the Social Justice Warriors of the Right, and those words aren't "Girls Rule."