Monday, 16 May 2016

Is Something Burning?

A day after running its most preposterous smear against Trump to date, based on anecdotes and decades-old impressions from former dates and spouses, the New York Times is now assailing him for his upcoming "little is off limits" campaign against Hillary Clinton. It's the familiar lament: the Donald and women! Yesterday he was out of bounds getting in their pants; today he's off limits airing their dirty laundry. Will he never learn!
    The article offers nothing in the way of new information about either candidate, but as a testament of media bias it turns a corner - right off a cliff.

"For Mrs. Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox. She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency — it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Mr. Trump."

          Quite possibly, Patrick Healy may be the stupidest donkey in the entire Times stable. Never mind the blatant shilling for Hillary in what is purporting to be a piece of analysis: is he really suggesting that Clinton simply deserves the presidency over an unmeritorious Trump? 
         And never mind his confusion of "paradox" with irony: it may indeed be an irony that a political contender pushing a feminist agenda should get dragged down by such "patriarchal" baggage as traditional marriage vows, but there is nothing quizzically illogical, i.e., paradoxical, in merit confounded by shame. 
        But can't this idiot grasp the difference between an insult and a humiliation? If Trump succeeds in "inflicting" a humiliation on her, then, by definition, she's lost it. There are many ways of handling criticism or insults, the usual method being the one favoured by Trump himself: hurl back one or two of your own. 
         But there's only one way to handle a humiliation: you suck it up! So is Healy conceding that Clinton is damaged goods before the contest even starts? Seems to be the case, although he's loth to state it in plain English.

"Mrs. Clinton has often flourished in the wake of boorish behavior: her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation of her husband, the congressional impeachment proceedings."

These are examples of boorishness?  An infidelity, a judicial inquiry and a congressional vote? What dictionary is Healy using? Aren't they, in fact, straightforward examples of adultery, legal overreach, and a failed motion, respectively? But Trump is "boorish" so it follows that all who have challenged the Clintons are "boorish" as well. 

"In a telephone interview, [Trump] noted that women did not like seeing Mrs. Clinton insulted or bullied by men. He said he wanted to be more strategic. . ."

What telephone interview? Where's the transcript, Patrick? Or are your readers content to trust your paraphrase of the NYT's most hated enemy? It's highly improbable that Trump would have referred to attacks on Clinton as "bullying." That would be tantamount to conceding that he himself has been "bullying" her up to now. And according to the media and to Clinton herself, that is exactly what he's been doing. When Trump talks of the "woman card," what he really means is the bully card. 
          But, literally, a bully is defined as someone with an unfair physical advantage over another. There's no question of a physical encounter between Trump and Hillary, even at the level of a shouting match. In fact, it's doubtful that the two rivals have ever been in the same room together. So the term must be a metaphor. It is a figure of speech. In that case, unless his critics are conceding that the "bombastic" Mr.Trump has some mental or rhetorical advantage over the woman, they can only mean that he is verbally "abusive" toward her. But how, exactly? 
        A simple test of a street bully is whether he - or she - would fight someone their own size or even bigger. So a simple test of a sexist, metaphorical, bully would be whether he attacks men with the same vigour he does women. The last year proves that Trump is no bully: he insults one and all, all too indiscriminately. 
       Now, is this really where fifty-plus years of feminism has taken America: that no man can prevail over a woman in the rough and tumble of the political arena without being castigated for unfairly using what the gynocracy calls his "upper-body advantage" - recalling that the brain is indeed part of the upper body? If so, then it's time to dust off and update Harry Truman's old adage, and tell the woman who once so famously scorned the humble prospect of ever baking cookies: Lady, if you can't stand the heat, go back to the kitchen!

No comments: