Hear The Lamentations Of Unstable Leftist Women
Or, The Orange Man Wrecked My Marriage:
By now it’s a truism to point out that the election of Donald Trump… [has] prompted a wholesale realignment of American politics. But it’s also sent shock waves through heterosexual romance.
In the piously left-leaning New York magazine, Molly Langmuir invites us to sympathise with the inner turmoil of activist ladies who are blaming their unhappy marriages, their divorces and estrangements, and pretty much everything, on the continued existence of Donald Trump. There’s quite a bit of mental jungle to hack through, so bring a packed lunch:
29 percent of respondents to a May 2017 survey said their romantic relationship had been negatively affected by Trump’s presidency. And even people ostensibly on the same side of the issues as their partner have run into challenges, with the climate exacerbating or revealing new fault lines.
Ms Langmuir introduces us to several pseudonymous couples and singletons – people for whom the merest deviation in thought has proved too much to bear. First up, we meet Kirsten:
Growing up, my parents were very liberal. My dad’s gay, he’s been with his husband now for over 40 years. That was my normal. My mom remarried a guy who’s very liberal.
Okay, then.
In high school, I also had a major drinking problem,
No. Don’t. We mustn’t rush to judge.
I was an art major at this big university…
Though, admittedly, she’s not making it easy.
…where I really didn’t fit in. All these girls had curling irons and were rushing sororities, but again I didn’t want to rock the boat. So I just kept partying more. Then at the end of the year, I was raped at a fraternity house and didn’t say anything about it.
Events seem to have taken a dark turn.
So I go home and I meet this guy. I’ll call him Geoffrey. He was a big Republican, and I wasn’t, but he was also a big drinker, like me. We started dating. It was a kind of revenge, that I could get a guy like the guy who raped me — I could get him to be nice to me. Looking back, it was all very strange.
A little… odd, certainly. A relationship based on revenge.
But then [Geoffrey and I broke up], and I got married and then had my son, and that relationship lasted for about 14 years. After we got divorced, I got sober, and then in 2010, I found Geoffrey on Facebook.
I’m not getting the feeling that this will play out well.
We started talking. We had a good time together. I didn’t really want to get married again, but I didn’t want to make anybody mad. So I said, “Sure, let’s get married.”
It’s almost as if a pattern were emerging. But anyhoo, the politics:
I don’t think Geoffrey voted for Trump. But he might have voted for John Kasich or Jeb Bush. I think they’re all idiots. But I didn’t get involved in the Hillary campaign. I just knew she’d win.
Ah.
So when she didn’t, I fell into this black hole.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, if your preferred candidate doesn’t win an election and you immediately spiral into serious depression, and watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, then the wheels on the wagon may already be rattling loose, and a little perspective may be in order. Say, a wider and more politically varied social circle, in which demurral is routine and diverging opinions don’t necessarily result in chronic rage. However, Kirsten sought solace in like-minded souls – other disaffected ladies of the left:
I was really energised. The people I was meeting were so bright and interesting.
Not everyone gets out much.
I took a class called Witnessing Whiteness and realised that racism is at the core of the problem of this country and that the only thing I can do is be an ally and show up and shut up.
And so, an alcoholic stalker of ex-boyfriends, and who bases intimate relationships on revenge, has fathomed society’s problems. And it’s all Whitey’s fault.
Geoffrey never went to one rally or meeting. He just didn’t care.
Perhaps Geoffrey wasn’t quite so enamoured of these “bright and interesting” people who think “whiteness” is the root of all social evil. Sadly, we aren’t privy to his perspective.
Then a girlfriend of mine got cancer, and I realised if I got cancer, I would’ve lived my whole life pretending to be something I’m not.
You may be assuming that I’m taking sentences from other articles, randomly, but I promise you I’m not. This is Kirsten’s reported train of thought, as shared by Ms Langmuir.
All of a sudden, I thought, I can’t be married anymore. There’s no time for complicity. There’s just none.
Yes, that’s the very next sentence. Whiteness is bad, conservatives are bad, and marriage is complicity. Do keep up.
Geoffrey was absolutely shocked. He said, “Are you 1,000 percent certain?” I said, “I am.” I told him I really wanted to work on making the world a better place, and I didn’t feel I could do that within the confines of our marriage.
At which point, I’m unsure whether to regard Geoffrey as hapless or having dodged a bullet.
I left feeling free, like in high school when your parents are out of town… Finally, I’m the feminist I should have always been.
At which point, comment is perhaps unnecessary.
Ms Langmuir goes on to share other tales of bedlamite sorrow. A woman named Samantha complains that her husband of 25 years, a fellow lefty, has “much less rage” than she does, specifically about “white privileged men,” and doesn’t wish to spend every evening equally infuriated by the existence of people whose politics differ somewhat. “Anger,” says Samantha, is her “de facto mode.” Though she’s trying to “get rid of it through therapy.”
A Brooklynite named Betsy boasts that “cultural change is like a steamroller. It flattens distinctions, and some people will get hurt,” by which she means men falsely and maliciously accused of rape, before adding, “and I’m okay with that.” Betsy and her husband are currently in counselling.
Another lady named Sarah tells us that her marriage became unsustainable “after the 2016 election, when I ramped up my political activism.” Sarah’s husband is described as “completely aligned” politically, a feminist, even, albeit one who doesn’t care to spend every waking hour raging about politics. “Talking about the Trump election,” says Sarah, “makes me more emotional than the end of my marriage.” And presumably, more emotional than the thought of her children losing the stability and reassurance of a family structure. But hey, priorities.
There are other woeful tales, all along similar lines – more than I can plough through without wanting to gnaw at my own elbows. Though readers are welcome to have a bash themselves, and then perhaps decide whether the root problem is actually, as claimed, the existence of Donald Trump, ectoplasmic “whiteness,” and the impending rape apocalypse, or something left unmentioned in the article, and maybe more specific to the ladies in question.
Nobody said anything was exclusively anything, genius.
Yeah, and I thought it was kinda axiomatic – this being the Thompson blog – that the West is where spiritual traditions are instinctively attacked as the fundamentally unclean antithesis of approved clown quarter moralities, those being the moralities with ways and means as vague as their beneficiaries and principles are absent.
The whole thing is a projection that somehow vaults that psychotic, fatal flaw to displace anything that might actually call for personal virtue. The fact that collective postmodern neopuritanism thrown at others is basically devoid of either just motive or real benefit isn’t discussed.
Who needs philosophy.
I doubt that we have to worry about that.
no she has not improved the world, she is still here, as the son and grandson of strong farm women I can tell you sh is a twat that needs to just leave
Oh, wait. Hal did change. There was nary a link to the curia in his reply.
Even an Ass. Prof. of English should be able to make a simple declarative sentence, in English, so that real people don’t have to try to divine her meaning
She did. You were probably reading too fast. It’s not that complicated.
She did.
Got it, we’ll mark you down as a Defender of the Faith, then, and get you a Gold membership to EF.
Why are you making cute remarks, Farnsworth? Try writing a simple declarative sentence, so real people don’t have to try to divine your meaning.
More woke, empowered women reacting to Mr Trump’s election with all of the intelligence and dignity you’d expect.
Nobody said anything was exclusively anything, genius.
Oh, Dear. Heroically typing without reading, are you?
Here, I’ll help you with what you missed, or at least what you clearly hoped wasn’t there:
Leave it to Hal to take what could have been a simple “and also this” argument and turn it into an opportunity to (ahem) harangue and dismiss a moral compass central to the lives of millions.
Well, no. Or, quite considerably you’re not even wrong.
As the rest of us have noted, the statement was Western, as opposed to simply . . . that sensibility approximately underlies the core formulation of religious faith, one of the most-harangued and dismissed moral compasses in the self-enlightened postmodern world.
Since you apparently want to claim a total and utter superiority for “Western”, you can now explain and justify to us the history and aftereffects of a couple of quite Western—and only Western—fellows named Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin . . . . where any and all importing to the outside of “The West” came later . . . . Oh, just do try and justify them to us.
As David keeps pointing out, you do have an entire ocean of devoted fellow travelers out there . . . .
In the meantime, for the overall thought, Ten is quite correct, it’s just that the area of quite established practice isn’t so narrow.
Oh, wait. Hal did change. There was nary a link to the curia in his reply.
Ehn, didn’t need one.
But if you would like a further reminder of the gulf between mere faith and actual personal religious practice, do ‘ave a review.
I don’t suppose that having failed to deploy plain English in a way that didn’t somehow escape you, you’d allow me my intent, would you, Hal?
Because it didn’t have to do with exclusivity, but as I said with the places where tradition is psychotically attacked by neopuritanical zombies – per this blog – which is in the west. Therefore by extension those would be Western sensibilities and those would be Western neopuritanical zombies.
…you can now explain and justify to us the history and aftereffects of a couple of quite Western—and only Western—fellows named Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin?
Yes, Western psychotic zombies, Hal.
Anyway, the point of all that was only to illustrate the nature of collective, moralistic force to wreck an advanced culture built on a morality rooted in personal responsibility and accountability. In the West. Where it happens.
But I understand you have a nail to pound.
…so real people don’t have to try to divine your meaning.
Real people don’t, but I am always happy to help you out.
That bit of utter nonsense is standard feminist dogma which you, leaping to Ms. Ass. Prof. Neonhair’s defense, translated as:
Of course, because there is zero evidence to back up either statement, both are what the pastures are full of, and I don’t mean grass or cattle.
Joe and Jane Baggadonuts are forking out (or someone for them) five figures/year so Neonhair and her ilk can take home six figures/year. No one expects a prof to be around at some random time “when the evaluator happened to want her”, however a prof’s (of either sex or any of the 376 genders) class is M-W-F at 0900 in Room 12 of Che Guevara Hall, and office hours are 12-1600 every other Tuesday and/or appointment by request, then barring hospitalization, war, or act of God, the prof had best be there ready to teach and mentor, even is zhe wants to be somewhere else doing something else, or is still weeping uncontrollably because of an election or because someone was “misgendered” on the internet.
I realize actual responsibility is an alien concept to these people, but if you are being paid to do a job, you do it.
Since you apparently want to claim a total and utter superiority for “Western”…
Nowhere did I intend to make any such grand claim, and I’ll thank you to point out the language you read which gave you such an impression, so that I can write more clearly in the future. Should such a phrase not be identified, I’ll just chalk this one up to the usual heroic typing without reading.
My point, which Ten already elaborated on, is that the Western moral compass is the one most frequently degraded by those who would see the West brought low. This should come as no surprise, and should hardly be controversial, given that the Western tradition is the most common and powerful in the West. One struggles to see the point in Angry Studies harpies and other Marxists attacking Confucian thought as part of their effort to undermine the foundations of Western success.
Ten is quite correct, it’s just that the area of quite established practice isn’t so narrow.
That is the exact “and also” argument that you might have made the first time.
I am always happy to help you out
There you go getting cute again.
That bit of utter nonsense is standard feminist dogma
Her jargon is hideous (e.g., “culturally” = in general), but the observation she makes might be made by anyone: people have different expectations for women and for men. Obviously, feminists have built a lot of dogma on that observation and others, but the observation itself isn’t dogmatic.
which you, leaping to Ms. Ass. Prof. Neonhair’s defense, translated as:
Of course, because there is zero evidence to back up either statement, both are what the pastures are full of, and I don’t mean grass or cattle.
Cute. You mean shit. You’re that guy on the internet who demands “evidence” when confronted with a commonplace.
. . . Neonhair and her ilk . . . six figures/year . . . 376 genders . . . zhe. . . weeping uncontrollably because of an election or because someone was “misgendered” on the internet.
Are you available right now, Prof. Farnsworth? You seemed to be having one of your spells.
if you are being paid to do a job, you do it.
Sure, but people can still gripe about their jobs, can’t they? Even lefties?
There you go getting cute again.
I was tempted to make a similar observation about my own interlocutor. Maybe like patriotism, cute is a last refuge.
…people have different expectations for women and for men…
Perhaps in your Wolkenkuckucksheim where you seem to expect women not to be able to, or have to, perform, but in the real world, if they are doing the same job as a man, we expect both men and women to perform to standard, and not flake off for some bullcrap reason such as being “emotionally available”. If either cannot, or will not, perform to standard, barring unions or some other similar nutroll that impedes the process, they are any combination of counselled, re-trained, or replaced.
Again, that is a concept alien to academia where accountability is generally anathema.
…but the observation itself isn’t dogmatic.
In the context, particularly with the nonsense “emotionally available”, yes, it is boilerplate feminist dogma, and their contradiction. One can either be a strong womxn capable of doing anything a man can anytime anywhereF, or you need special consideration because of special needs like random “emotionally unavailability”. Pick one and stick with it.
Sure, but people can still gripe about their jobs, can’t they?
There is a large gap between griping about a job, and whining about being discriminated against for imaginary reasons because one apparently doesn’t want to do it, or be evaluated for doing it.
. . . it didn’t have to do with exclusivity, but as I said with the places where tradition is psychotically attacked by neopuritanical zombies – . . . .
. . . which occurs just about anywhere.
. . . per this blog – which is in the west. . . .
Why yes, David posts from the UK . . . and David posts on all sorts of things, from the UK.
Therefore by extension those would be Western sensibilities and those would be Western neopuritanical zombies.
Your own note:
Interestingly, that sensibility approximately underlies the core formulation of Western religious faith, one of the . . . .
. . . and so forth, where you discuss the aspects of religion and faith. Where those aspects do exist, but aren’t exclusively “Western” . . . and have nothing to do with where a blog happens to be posted from.
…you can now explain and justify to us the history and aftereffects of a couple of quite Western—and only Western—fellows named Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin?
Yes, Western psychotic zombies, Hal.
Yep. Karl and Vlad are definitely Western. We’re able to have this discussion because so much else is as well, but yes they are indeed of “The West”.
Anyway, the point of all that was only to illustrate the nature of collective, moralistic force to wreck an advanced culture built on a morality rooted in personal responsibility and accountability. In the West. Where it happens. . . . and the East. Where it happens. And the North, Where it happens. And . . . .
Ten is quite correct, it’s just that the area of quite established practice isn’t so narrow.
That is the exact “and also” argument that you might have made the first time.
And, of course, the discussion of scope and range and location of the practice is exactly the point that was made the first time . . . .
Wow, Hal, the pedantic revisionism is so think one wonders if you bother to even try to grasp the intent of a point made, much less its actual language. Given that whole new trajectory you’re on, a reasonable man can see where some doubt would arise.
But again, nail meet hammer.
“Emotionally available” is just another example of hideous jargon. It’s psychobabble, smeary and pretentious; I never use it myself: I wince when I hear it used, and almost always make the effort to conceal my wincing — because, though nothing pleases me more than a fine style in speaking and writing, it’s better somehow to let unselfconscious speakers go on as they will. In this we may be following the good old precautionary advice of not waking a sleepwalker; and besides, by our well-judged leniency towards others’ lazy recourse to buzzword and cliche, we get to listen past the style, to what they are trying to say.
Now, as I mentioned before, the meaning of that jargon-y “culturally” is “in general.” In general people have different expectations for women and for men. Not each student, not every student; not this student, not that student; but among the large class of students, in general these expectations will emerge. Was the professor curt with me that time I came with a problem? Listen impatiently to my question? Tell me peremptorily to “look it up”? In general these will ride as minor defalcations of a male professor, but in general a female will get hammered for them. (Of course, the assoc. prof. didn’t mention — in her tweet — that sometimes the double standard works to a woman’s benefit, or against a man’s: didn’t mention it because she’s only griping, giving her two cents’ worth, getting it off her chest, having her say. It’s not the whole story; for that, you have to listen to everybody.)
“It’s possible these very silly women will someday get a little perspective on their lives, and come to regard this sort of thing with embarrassment, embarrassment with a generous ladling of rue sauce.”
Prediction: won’t happen.
It’s just this war, and that lying son of a bitch Johnson!
Comments passed the century mark. Hmm… Does that mean the resident sophist has paid us a visit? Why yes, yes it does.
Idle Observation: Molly Langmuir and her good time rage buddies make excellent cases for estrogen rationing.
Seriously, I mean, what did white people ever do for us?
I’m glad I just skimmed that article and didn’t waste the time reading it. “Line of thought” babblings are a waste of time.
All I could see in that article is a collection of miserable, shrewish women who couldn’t make a relationship work no matter what the circumstances.
There is no party in my pants unless you’re invited.”
Thank goodness for that.
That.