The sad fate of Democrat women.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The war on women: The sad fate of Democrat women.

It’s always a little galling (not to mention hilarious) for those of us on the right to reflect that the Democratic Party — the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and family-destroying social programs — the party of Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, and Baltimore — the party that facilitates a black abortion rate that would bring a smile to the face of Planned Parenthood’s genocidally racist founder — has somehow managed to sell itself to African Americans as the friend of black people!

But it’s beginning to be equally galling (and equally comic) to reflect that the Democrats have also contrived to present themselves as the party of women.

This is the party whose most powerful senator left his probable mistress to drown after a car accident; the party whose most popular living president is a serial philanderer and accused rapist; the party whose most prominent woman rose to that prominence by virtue of her stand-by-your-man loyalty to a louse; and now the party of Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer, two men who have humiliated their wives with truly creepy behavior and yet seek to continue their political careers regardless.

We all make mistakes and it’s not that the GOP hasn’t got its share of sexual shenanigans, but the Republican establishment doesn’t routinely make excuses for its recidivist miscreants or make icons of their victimized spouses. The Dems…? They seem to think their political agenda somehow excuses their personal behavior. I joked on the Ricochet podcast last week that the party’s new slogan should be, ”Women — We Treat You Like Dirt, But At Least You Can Kill Your Unborn Children!”

But don’t worry. The Democrats are there to protect women from Romney’s “binders full of women.”

Update: And then there’s this.

Share

37 comments

  • Publius 2

    Excellent commentary, Robert. Time to take the gloves off with these miscreants and, as Valerie Jarrett once muttered, speak truth to power. The country will not recover from its wounds until they are all gone, investigated, prosecuted and incarcerated.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    Why, it’s almost as though the events of the last century–the warehousing of children in day care centers, the metastatic growth of government, soaring divorce rates, women in combat, the demographic collapse of the middle class–demonstrate that the opponents of the Nineteenth Amendment were right to predict that its passage would be a disaster for our cvilization. How crazy is that?

  • wodun

    Umm what?

    I am totally cool with women voting and working outside the home.

    Not sure what your comment has to do with Democrats behaving badly toward women.

  • R. Cotour

    Emotion over “rational” thinking.

    The operational problem on the other side is that the Republicans are unable to connect and communicate in an emotional way to a group of people who have been conditioned generation after generation, that emotion trumps rational thinking. And in addition I believe that overall there are a growing percentage of Americans the people of America see both party’s as leading them down the path, to be delivered to a New World Order for the slaughter of their individual rights and freedoms.

    Evidence? Obamacare, Agenda 21, Carbon tax agenda, Geo engineering, The Patriot act, HLS, TSA, 16 trillion dollar deficit on the way to 22 trillion (the new slavery), a blatantly Marxist / Communist / Socialist president (choose one and the people that surround him), a government focused on de industrializing the country, the over the top promotion of food stamps for all creating total government dependence, the recognition that our borders are open and the blatant unwillingness to stop illegal immigration, now known as “being out of compliance”, the unwillingness of the “right” to vote based on their supposed philosophy, the blatant ignoring of and the usurping of the Constitution. I could go on and on.

    Is it too late?

    Stay tuned.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    Your obvious confusion demonstrates that the effects of Political Correctness on human cognition are comparable to those of lead exposure.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    The operational problem on the other side is that the Republicans are unable to connect and communicate in an emotional way to a group of people who have been conditioned generation after generation, that emotion trumps rational thinking.

    The failure of Republicans to connect with women is not a function of social conditioning, but rather of biology.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    The above was a reply to R. Cotour. Sorry.

  • I am getting very tired of you and Shibes Meadow and the bigoted and very superficial approach you both take for every problem our society faces. To you, every problem must be because of skin color and gender. You are no different than the race and gender hustlers on the left, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the most radical feminists, who ascribe all problems to whitey and men. You simply pick a different skin color and gender.

    You’ve made your point. The majority of society, on both the left and the right as well as almost all of the readers of my website do not agree with you. I think it is now time for you to take your bigotry elsewhere.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    Outrage is not an argument.

  • R. Cotour

    With all due respect Mr. Z, if you continue to chase the indoctrinated, libs /socialists / Marxists etc. away, and Im sure they are a part of a concerted and community organized effort to control and shape the conversation in all corners of the media, how will we be able to expose their lack of substance and their distain for the Constitution and the individuals freedoms?

  • R. Cotour

    K. Stevens, please elaborate, what about their biology prevents Republicans from communicating “properly” ?

    Are Democrat men more capable of communicating?

    Do they have different biology than Republican men?

    If so, where are they from?

  • You are correct. I actually have a high tolerance for ideas I disagree with, even bigotry. However, I felt it was time to state my conclusions bluntly about their opinions.

    Note that no one has been banned.

  • Joe

    It seems to me that the democratic party gets much of it’s power by granting victimhood status to specific groups of people, now it also seems that the dems also create these victims! Imagine that Hillary Clinton had empowered herself and left the serial rapist, Imagine That Huma Abedin also had empowered herself and left the electric flashed. Fact is that they were more empowered by playing the victim card and garnered much sympathy from the voting public at least in public opinion.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    To you, every problem must be because of skin color and gender. You are no different than the race and gender hustlers on the left, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the most radical feminists, who ascribe all problems to whitey and men. You simply pick a different skin color and gender.

    That is incorrect. Rather than blaming women or those of a different color for the rapidly worsening condition of Western civilization, I blame the adoption of blank-slate thinking by our decision-making elites. The belief that evolution stopped from the neck up fifty thousand years ago is a disastrously flawed neurological model. To make that sort of left-wing creationism the basis for public policy is like a space agency’s using calculations derived from Ptolemaic cosmology to try to get to Mars.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    If so, where are they from?

    Republicans are from Mars, Democrats from Venus. Neither group appears to be very well acquainted with conditions here on Planet Earth, alas.

  • R. Cotour

    First, by assuming that Western civilization is worsening implies that it is being compared to something else that is doing better. While I do not like the general trajectory that I observe our particular country going at the moment I reject the implication that there is something better.

    That being said what concerns me is that our country, with all of its imperfections, appears to be being purposely forced by both the Democrats and the Republicans away from the simple and brilliant concepts of the Constitution. One administration after the other moving more and more towards the government owning the people instead of the other way around as it was intended.

    As far as evolution goes, there is little if any evolutionary difference between a human being today and 50 thousand years ago, we are essentially the same. Where the difference lies is in how man has come to understand how to manipulate and abuse man. This is the key to understanding what the Constitution is about and why it was conceived. To counter balance those human tendencies to abuse power not because we have evolved biologically.

    What’s old is new again, there are truths and rules of operation in the Constitution that must be reconnected with, that is something that we all, no matter how we label ourselves must force ourselves as individuals, as Americans to accomplish.

    I also want to point out that we must not limit ourselves in accomplishing this by fooling ourselves that we are all playing by some set of moral rules or a moral model. Ultimately there are no rules, there is only winning. Those are the only rules and morality is optional.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    As far as evolution goes, there is little if any evolutionary difference between a human being today and 50 thousand years ago, we are essentially the same.

    This is incorrect. Ten thousand years ago no one could digest milk sugar past infancy. Six thousand years ago no one had blue eyes. Three thousand years ago no one in Asia had hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha, the genetic mutation that now enables Tibetans–but not Han Chinese–to bear children in that region’s thin mountain air.

    The rise of civilization has accelerated human evolution.

  • R. Cotour

    If you want to establish the “advancement” in the digestion of milk then I would agree with you, but we are not, we talking about the capacity and complexity of the human brain. If that is the metric then I’m afraid that the human brain is basically the same today as it was 50K years ago.

    What distinguishes man from other animals is his capacity to live in two worlds, his natural state reality (basic survival) and in addition an intellectualized state reality. Human beings capacity to accomplish this dual reality separates him exponentially from other animals on this planet. (we are very strange)

    So while you are talking about an adaptation of the stomach to digest a particular food the actual conversation we are having is about the human mind, its volume, structure and complexity. I don’t think with my stomach, although I can be manipulated and incentivized to do certain things if someone in power gets to control what and when I eat.

    In addition, your observation related to “the rise of civilization”, actually describes the curbing of evolution not the acceleration of the evolution of man. Civilization removes certain stresses from existence and therefore actually tends to end evolution. Remove the need to adapt to a new environment and the human brain has no need to evolve. We may be, in evolutionary terms (not technological terms) a dead end species.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    Civilization removes certain stresses from existence and therefore actually tends to end evolution.

    No, the rise of civilization does not end natural selection, but rather changes its basis as well as speeds it up. You should read Cochran’s and Harpending’s The Ten Thousand Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution to learn something about this topic, about which you are evidently unfamiliar.

  • wodun

    Just for the record, I am also cool with women in combat should they meet the same requirements that men do. It might be a rare occurrence but women that can perform at the same level should get the same opportunity. I will also add that a woman that could do that should be recognized as a BAMF.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    And what about all the men in uniform who, driven by the instinct to protect women from harm, will die needlessly in the attempt to shield lady soldiers during battle? How cool are you with that?

  • Pzatchok

    One theory about the shrinking brain is that its shrinking in order to speed up.

    As it has been shrinking over the generations it has kept the same folds contours and convolutions. they are all just getting a bit smaller.
    With a smaller brain the distance ‘thoughts’ need to travel back and forth across the brain is shortened. thus faster connectivity.

    Though the whole shrinking brain thing could just be a consequence of a change in diet from a more protein based one to a more grain and vegetable one. Less protein for the brain to grow with.

    Though this could be why pure vegans never look as healthy as those who tend to be omnivorous.

    I don’t think human evolution has accelerated over the last 10 thousand years or so.
    We are still experiencing the same amount of genetic mutation per generation as we have always experienced. We just have a far larger gene pool now(more people) and we are keeping far more people alive with minor mutations than we have ever before, and some of them are reproducing and passing on the mutations.
    Thus the almost false impression of more rapid genetic mutations.

  • R. Cotour

    I will cherry pick a paragraph from an article you site.

    “As to why is it shrinking, perhaps in big societies, as opposed to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, we can rely on other people for more things, can specialize our behavior to a greater extent, and maybe not need our brains as much,”

    There are plenty of qualifying words that describe what “IS” happening in regards to the evolution of the human brain, such as “perhaps”, “maybe”, “what could be happening”, ” one THEORY as to why the brain is shrinking is that its shrinking in order to speed up”.

    (This would conclude that for millions of years of the human brain measurably, through observation, growing in size and complexity that the paradigm of positive development is now reversing and it is now, for some reason, advantageous for the human brain to shrink. That is an interesting conclusion given the measurable data. Although the capacity for a human female to eject a newly minted human baby through the usual delivery system might have something to do with an initial size limit. The general established rule IMO, as demonstrated through observation is that the bigger and more complex the brain the more it can do and that in general is better.)

    Time will tell if we are evolving due to humans being able to modify and manipulate their environment and there by making existence easier, or devolving due to the removal of stressors in our environment. Millions of years of existence stress has resulted in “US”, why would that proven paradigm of progress change? Do you think that a reasonable question? Perhaps Cocheran and Harpending could comment.

    We will get back to the politics and how that relates to this subject and why you site that there is a difference in biology between the “good” Democrat / liberal man and the “bad” Republican / conservative man.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    I don’t think human evolution has accelerated over the last 10 thousand years or so.

    Think about what you are saying.Life remained much the same from one millennium to another for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. But then we developed agriculture ten thousand years ago, and then came cities, and then government, and then industry BS medicine, with each transformation conming faster than the one before it. Think about how much different daily life is today as compared to, say, a century ago. Today’s selection pressures–with that recent invention, the Pill, being Exhibit A–are radically different from the population bottlenecks faced by Ice Age cavemen. Either evolution is speeding up or Darwin got it wrong.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    We will get back to the politics and how that relates to this subject and why you site that there is a difference in biology between the “good” Democrat / liberal man and the “bad” Republican / conservative man.

    Just between you, me, and that fence post over there, you did not understand my point: I am not the left-wing opposition. You are the left-wing opposiiton.

  • R. Cotour

    Everyone is confused but you.

  • Garry

    By “biology” I think Kenneth was referring to women, not to differences between Democrat men and Republican men. Beyond that, color me confused as well.

  • Kenneth Stevens

    You are correct about my use of “biology.”

    As for the rest, my point is that both Republicans and Democrats accept the discredited notion of human neurological uniformity, that is, the belief that all groups of people possess essentially identical mental hardware. This is the modern equivalent of geocentric cosmology.

  • Kelly Starks

    If no good deed goes unpunished, does it also go that no abuse will go unrewarded?

    Reminds me of guys old complaints that being a nice guy gets you ignored buy girls/women (depending on the age of the complainer) but guys who are heals have females fighting over them.

  • Kelly Starks

    Theres also the detail that humans have been getting smaller. This could be a side effect of lower protean consumption rates amoung agraians vrs hunter/gatherers. Not good trends though.

    I can see how civilization can protect – even utilize for drudge work – stupider people. On the other hand, lately social policy (welfare etc) has given strong financial advantages for the least fit to breed most, and made higher IQ more vital for economic success. (Which is certainly counter productive) and has discourage births so much no developed world nation has enough children to manitain their population, much less manitani the population of fit people.

    Cuold be a niteresting set of cultural and biological evolutionary changes in the very near future..
    …adn then you have to add ni genetic engineering..

  • R. Cotour

    You are not describing evolution when you site advances in civilization you are siting and describing cultural complexity and that cultural complexity is a result of evolution. Survival stress produces need to adapt, need produces adaptation and solutions and solutions are a result of acquired desirable differences as they relate to those needs over time. You are confusing evolution and culture, one being the result of the other. Sorry.

    ” don’t think human evolution has accelerated over the last 10 thousand years or so.

    Think about what you are saying.Life remained much the same from one millennium to another for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. But then we developed agriculture ten thousand years ago, and then came cities, and then government, and then industry BS medicine, with each transformation conming faster than the one before it. Think about how much different daily life is today as compared to, say, a century ago. Today’s selection pressures–with that recent invention, the Pill, being Exhibit A–are radically different from the population bottlenecks faced by Ice Age cavemen. Either evolution is speeding up or Darwin got it wrong. “

  • R. Cotour

    And you don’t know why women fight over them? (am I correct that you are a woman?)

  • Kelly Starks

    You are not correct. Kelly was a guy’s name in Ireland.

  • R. Cotour

    Thank you for the clarification. And do you know why women fight over them?

  • Kelly Starks

    A good question. Best theory I ever heard. Arrogance comes across as power (I.E. high status catch), and a guy that’s not as hard to win/keep doesn’t feel like as much of a catch.

    Or perhaps adrenalines addictive, and fear/excitement can be hard to distinguish in humans..

  • R. Cotour

    I believe you are on the right road, everything for the most part ultimately comes down to sex and selection. No matter how disconnected from such base drivers humans believe they are disconnected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *