Political marriages and the mean-spirited left
Neo-neocon talks about political mixed marriages (from a New York Times article), noting that in most of those marriages, it is the wife who is liberal and the husband is conservative. She points out how condescending the women were towards their husbands:
I have been watching lately how abusive many liberals are towards those who do not share their views--if you don't believe me, take a look at the abuse that Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs heard from Democrat Bob Beckel on Fox Business News. The left tries to appear like they are the "nice guys" or in the case of mixed marriages--"girls" --but they are extremely mean-spirited in their interactions, both personally and in public with those who do not agree with them. Fighting back in the same manner is the only way to put a stop to this behavior, though in the case of a personal interaction with a spouse, bringing up facts in a manner that is "more articulate" might have the same effect.
Note also how polite and tactful the conservative men in the Times article are toward their liberal spouses, and the unwarranted condescension of most of the liberal wives towards their own conservative husbands. Here are some examples of what I mean [each quote is from a different liberal woman married to a different conservative man; emphasis mine]:
“It’s his character, his emotions, his appreciation of me that are important. And he is coherent in his own way. He has legitimate reasons for all the repellent ideas he holds.” [the article regards this as humor, and perhaps it is meant to be—but it doesn’t sound all that funny to me.]
“My friends might act dogmatic or superior or try to pick a fight,” [another liberal wife] said. “And it’s frustrating because he does know a lot. I know I’m right, but he is more articulate. And he’s kind, so how can he have these political beliefs — he doesn’t think that global warming is man-made — or appreciate people that I think are dangerous?”
“I had a history of dating Republicans. I found them interesting but misguided.”
I have been watching lately how abusive many liberals are towards those who do not share their views--if you don't believe me, take a look at the abuse that Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs heard from Democrat Bob Beckel on Fox Business News. The left tries to appear like they are the "nice guys" or in the case of mixed marriages--"girls" --but they are extremely mean-spirited in their interactions, both personally and in public with those who do not agree with them. Fighting back in the same manner is the only way to put a stop to this behavior, though in the case of a personal interaction with a spouse, bringing up facts in a manner that is "more articulate" might have the same effect.
posted by Helen at 4:13 PM
37 Comments:
"She points out how condescending the women were towards their husbands"
Is that really because they are liberal or is it because that's the fashionable attitude among women at large? Perhaps one begets the other.
Before about 1912, Americans all shared certain core values. Their differences were about how to approach them politically, if a political approach was thinkable.
It might be the case that the majority of Americans still share those values. However, at least one of them -- civility -- has fallen from the list. One consequence has been an anything-goes / take-no-prisoners approach to political intercourse, with results for the bearability of our political discourse I hardly need to describe. That alone will keep the great majority of liberals and conservatives from becoming romantically entangled across the political divide.
But some will brave the wrath of their political allies and "marry the wrong sort." We cannot expect one side to persuade the other to change its views; the positions of both camps are too deeply entrenched, and anyway, is there a harder phrase to utter than "I was wrong," even indirectly, even when it's justified? And so we'll occasionally hear these "his politics are evil but I still love him and no, I can't explain why" plaints from persons whose confidence in their positions is unshakable and whose humility is inadequate. Sadly, it's a problem with long tentacles, whose ultimate expression is condemnation of a sort no human should feel authorized to make.
Dr. Helen has once again made the perennial error :
Referring to Leftists as 'liberals'.
They are NOT liberal at all - they are illiberal, intolerant, and fascist.
Yet, the right never learns. They let the left define the terms, which of course are favorable to the left.
This is why the right always cedes more and more ground.
I think there's something to be noted here.
Liberal and conservative change in their meanings over time, but they also change their de facto meanings almost overnight, depending on the particular political issues currently in the news.
Whatever was true at another time and place, in the US in 2010, the "liberal" tendency is by and large the authoritarian one. When we think of famous historical authoritarians, we think of a few characteristics: shrill and condescending are prominent ones.
It wouldn't surprise anyone to hear that a rabid authoritarian is shrill and condescending. The only reason it seems odd is that the label "liberal", which in the dictionary means the opposite, currently means "brutal authoritarian."
I hate it when my wife and I disagree on a candidate. It is a real pain in the ass convincing her that we just shouldn't vote if our vote is going to cancel one another out. It is an even bigger pain in the ass sneaking out to vote after I've convinced her of this.
:-o
I maintain that exactly 100 years after women get the right to vote, the society in question either ends or comes perilously close to it.
The first 2 generations of women are OK, but the 3rd starts to get the bright idea of using the government to strip men of rights, with no qualms about basic human decency, and the 4th generation is so far gone that they have devolved back to the level of 10,000 BC.
A society ends or nearly ends 100 years after women get the right to vote. If you doubt this, check back with me on the state of America in 2019.
My liberal friends (used to be) similarly obnoxious till I started getting annoyed. I moved to a very blue city after living in a very red state, and was flummoxed by the reflexive rudeness of these genteel, tolerant people when I'd just say, No, I don't agree. It's not like I start political discussions except with close friends or complete strangers.
The commonality I find in all eactions is some form of "How can you say something like that?" Like if you'd tried to defend pederasty instead of just admitting you'd voted for GWB, and, on balance, didn't regret it yet.
There is a clear, if implicit, assumption that there's something wrong with you--we just have to figure out whether you're dumb, sick, evil or ignorant. Corollary to this reaction is a childish inability to comprehend, much less argue, with what I have to say.
I have made this stop, and they've stopped daring to bait me about politics only by upping the ante.
I've got no trouble nowadays outing their lurking insults. "It sounds like you're implying that anyone who did this must be an idiot. Do you really think I'm an idiot?" Said that on several occasions in the last year.
It helps also that in almost any room I'm in, I know more about economics, politics and history than everyone else put together.
And Smartphones have proven invaluable for instantly debunking "facts" that a lot of these people accept more credulously than Baptists accept Creationism.
However, I don't think this is just a problem with liberalism--it's what happens with all orthodoxies. When I lived in a red state, I got similarly obnoxious responses from conservatives when I'd express a libertarian position. And I saw plenty of liberals get eye-rolling rude treatment.
Let's be nice to the liberals next year when they realize we've got them on the run. A lot of them believe what they do only because its what they swim in. Let's make it easy for them to get a breath of fresh air.
FYI, Pam Geller is from Atlas Shrugs, not Atlas Shrugged
A lot of them believe what they do only because its what they swim in.
Really, though, if someone swims in a sewer, he's not going to be welcome in my hot tub, either.
But you're right, when things that go around, come around, we shouldn't just shove liberals into the metaphorical cement, we should... Oh, what the hell, screw 'em.
When I reached the site, the video had been pulled. It can be seen at Fox Business: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4351500/does-america-need-the-ground-zero-mosque
Beckel is an ideologue windbag and simply lashed out at Pam Geller. Seems to me that leftists are condescending more often than not.
Francis W. Porretto reminds us that before 1912 all Americans shared the same opinions about all political issues and they were right until an evil liberal came along and spoiled everything.
You're funny.
In reality all people are issue specific. Temporarily isolate any individual from public view and ask what his/her opinion is of a list of specific issues and you'll hear a mix of answers. People tend to align themselves with one side or another but they all have a range of opinions that do not conveniently fall on one side of the fence or the other.
Conservatives will continue to lose to the left, until they stop calling them 'liberals'.
But conservatives are just not capable of learning this basic tactic. That is why conservatives keep losing.
After Lincoln Emancipation Prolamation (he was Republican)
name any social reform--for blacks, health, social security, education, equal rights, anti-hate laws etc that the GOP authored and passed (those were all changes for the social good brought about by mean spirited Democrats)--oh, minimum wage, worker's comp, medicare, G.I Bill and on and on.
That some hubby may strike you as mean is simply anecdotal. Facile Good people / Bad people is oversimplification.
Since when have facts meant anything?
Seriously. My marriage has been a whole lot better since I stopped countering my wife's contentions with facts. I look for an argument that appeals to her feelings and it literally spins her around.
Since so-called liberalism is a feelings-based "reasoning" process, it should work with the so-called liberals also. (Someone else pointed out they weren't really liberal at all.)
any social reform--for blacks,
Is that why blacks are so well off now? Why 30% of all black men spend time in prison? Why young black man in Washington, D.C. has a better chance of being shot to death than a soldier did in Irag? Why Seven out of every 10 African-American children are born out of wedlock? Half of young black men are unemployed? Why an estimated 40 percent of black males drop out of high school? Why black males, who comprised 7.9 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population in 2000, accounted for no more than 5.2 percent of undergraduate students that year, and by 2004 had dropped to 2.8 percent? Why 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children?
fred - you're truly an idiot. A useful idiot, maybe, but an idiot none the less.
Reminds me of this letter to the editor in today's paper. A single mother wondered why there was no help for her. The conservative posters were skeptical of government as the source of help, but also gave her advice, pointed her to resources, charities, opportunities, etc., one even offered to pay for a book that may help her. The liberal posters offered her little more than a plea for more government, a blaming of men, and badmouthing conservatives.
http://www.sj-r.com/letters/x1551225957/Letter-Where-is-the-help-for-a-single-mother
name any social reform--for blacks, health, social security, education, equal rights, anti-hate laws etc that the GOP authored and passed
You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? passed because the GOP aligned with like minded Democrats to push it thru. I assure you that the late Senator Robert "Grand Kleagle" Byrd (D-WVA) voted "nay".
Who passed the Jim Crow laws, fred? once more, Democrats. Who integrated the Little Rock, AR schools over the objections of the local and state authorities? President Eisenhower, a Republican.
@DADadvocate - I am reluctant to wade into an argument with a name-caller, but I cannot let this one go.
It is established behavioral theory that men who grow up with absent or weak father figures get in lots of trouble.
So-called reforms were passed that paid low income (read black) women more money per child and gave them a housing stipend as long as they were unmarried.
This coincided with the beginning of the problems you cite.
Mary Matalin (conservative) and James Carville (liberal), a very famous couple as an exception to this discussion. Both appear to be equal on how they treat each other.
Ignorance is Bliss,
Thanks for pointing out the correct blog name --I fixed it.
It is established behavioral theory that men who grow up with absent or weak father figures get in lots of trouble.
So-called reforms were passed that paid low income (read black) women more money per child and gave them a housing stipend as long as they were unmarried.
I don't see that you're arguing with me here. You point out how the liberal social reforms have heavily damaged the black family structure, thus making life worse for them, especially black males.
In 1965, Moynihan concluded: "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States" The left called it blaming the victim, welfare programs continued to expand and the problem continues to worsen. It goes beyond just black but they're the hardest hit at this time.
Generally, I don't call names but fred is beyond hearing logic or recognizing the truth.
I see that we are in agreement.
Yes...all liberals are whining idiots and women are uppity..sorta like...well...you know.
Advocates of big government are always inventing or appropriating new, nice-sounding words for themselves, as they did with "liberal". The one they seem to be pushing now is "progressive". It bothers me that even their opponents are using these words. We should pick our own words for them, such as "socialist" or "authoritarian".
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Carville household.
reformers are sometimes right about what is wrong in society, but almost never recognize what is right ... witness the charge that anyone who yearns for a particular aspect of society in a bygone era wants to return to slavery, or Jim Crow or segregation as well.
they also pay no attention to unintended consequences because their intentions are so "pure". because their intentions are so pure, anyone who opposes them is impure.
Helen,
you are spot on again. My example was that my wife was WAY left leaning which infuriated me because the left would increase taxes which took money AWAY from our family. I ways paying $A90-95K (about USD80K-85K) in taxes in the late 90s when I was in Australia. I was trying to support a family of 6 and that much tax really hurt. And yes, she would insult me to her friends and then 'laugh' about it. To insult your husband is a 'joke'. When I would talk to her in bed afterwards and tell her that it was absolutely unacceptable to me for her to put me down in front of ANYONE as I was her HUSBAND and she had taken a vow to 'love and honour'. And 'honour' includes not bad mouthing your spouse...EVER.
And as a typically conservative man? Her comment to me during divorce was that one of her friends asked her if I had been running her down in private. She told her friend that in the 32 years she knew me she had never once known me to make a negative comment about her. EVER. And she noted there were times when she was depressed and upset that she was waaaay overweight and I never once commented on her weight. (Except one time when she was too thin and I noted I was hetero and she was looking too much like a boy). Her friend asked her how she could possibly be divorcing a man who had never, ever criticised her in ANY way.....apparently she believed such men did not exist. But I know plenty of them.
We have put up with a LOT of lies told about us Helen. Men like me are going to be dragging women into common law courts for slander soon. Just keep your eye out for that one.
@Dadvocate. Yeah...the left has done blacks a WHOLE lot of good...NOT!
@Robert.
"It is established behavioral theory"
Damn you men are dumb now. You do NOT establish a behavioural theory. You hypothesise a theory and then prove it or disprove it with evidence. I assume you are the beneficiary of a 'guvment education'.
It is a FACT that children raised fatherless have FAR worse outcomes than children raised with the father in the home. Indeed, children raised with ONLY the father in the home perform better than kids with an in tact family. Fathers make better parents than mothers do. THAT is a fact. No 'theory' needed.
I'm not wrong, he's just more articulate. Ha! I'm gonna have to remember that one!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I have to say I'm very, very disappointed in Eric Bolling and his show. I was happy to hear he was getting his own show because he's a smart guy with a good temperament and perspective. Sadly, his show is a dumb, obnoxious rock throwing session where he gets some really boorish a-holes to come on and all scream at each other at the same time. It's a total train wreck.
I honestly agree that the left is mean. My last love was a reactionary of the typical sort. And, really, I didn't care for the most part. I didn't pick her for her ability to play well with others, generally. I honestly expect most women to be liberal, in the modern sense (socialist), to one degree or another. The fights just lead to great sex. Besides, with mates, if it isn't politics, then it will be the dishes, work I promised to do, or the inlaws. There is always something. Oh, and women ARE meaner than men. I think it has both a biological purpose (testing) and is a result of... well... penis envy.
Just my opinion, mind you. I realize what I wrote might cause some trouble. Just take it out on Glenn. He'll thank me for it later? *evil grins*
I recently ended a relationship over political differences. I would occasionally try to reason with this woman, but it was a lost cause. Showing that certain leftist assumptions were clearly wrong didn't phase her. Pointing out liberal policy failures didn't elicit a response. Asking for examples of liberal policy successes yielded silence. She simply wasn't wiling to even question her beliefs, and would get offended at the suggestion that she should; because if policies growing out of erroneous beliefs beliefs were doing more harm than good, then she was partially responsible for the godawful results.
In the end, I realized that while I truly loved her for many reasons, at the end of the day I didn't respect her closed mindedness and her turning a blind eye toward fact, logic, and reason, and I certainly wouldn't want any children I might father being raised to think like that...
In reading the article, I see clearly that those woman don't respect their husbands. I hope they have good lawyers, because a woman who thinks like that (leftist disrespect for productive people & property rights) won't hesitate to eviscerate them in the divorces on the horizon.
LPF,
"her turning a blind eye toward fact, logic, and reason"
She did not 'turn a blind eye'. The vast majority of women are simply not capable of understanding facts, reason or logic. For this reason the feminists say:
"Math, science, reason and logic are constructs of the patriarchy to oppress women and must be destroyed. Women have a better way of knowing."
It is just that you are inferior and that you do not have this 'better way of knowing'. ;-) As far as divorces. My book will hopefully be out around the end of this year. For those men who use it they will be able to deny the jurisdiction of the courts. I am putting an end to 'divorce court hell' for any man who cares to educate himself how to do that. Those men who choose to be ignorant will deserve their fate.
LPF,
don't believe me?
http://www.articlesbase.com/mysticism-articles/a-womans-way-of-knowing-the-importance-of-emotional-intelligence-and-how-women-can-reclaim-the-relevance-of-right-brain-thinking-1071382.html
If women have so much 'emotional intelligence' how come they don't know that stealing a mans children from him is bad?
I kind of agree that the left bugs me in general. What the right side forgets, though, is they have their own share of intolerant, nasty kooks, and they are mainly situated on the fundamental religious side of the right. Whether you want to realize it or not. They are as loony as the far-left hand side is.
Plenty of budding George Sodini's here aren't there? Some men just can't accept the fact that women in America are all barefoot and pregnant any more.
@ God Of Bacon, while I'm hesitant to feed the troll, I would point out that George Sodini isn't blip on the horizon compared to what the liberal embrace of Islam is going mean for hard core feminists.
I wonder what the protest signs will say when the women of Detroit start getting beaten in the street for wearing nail polish.
"http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/survey-81-of-detroit-muslims-want-sharia-in-muslim-countries.html"
I always get a chuckle out out of the thought that 100,000 years of cultural evolution and the best political philosophers the world has ever known gave us this free and prosperous country... and liberals think they can completely re-work it for the better with ideas coalesced over a couple of late nights huddled around a bong...
Post a Comment
<< Home