What women think about when they think about Obama

Yep, that’s it. Evan H., who sent me the article, writes:

Warning—if writing about the SPLC made you want to take a shower, you’ll probably want to put on a hazmat suit before reading that blog post.

The blog article, which is by the ridiculous yet all-too-typical Judith Warner at the New York Times, is strong evidence for my argument against the female franchise. To me it is self-evident that persons who see their elected political leaders through a haze of sexual fantasy and longing should not have the right to vote for their political leaders.

A female friend doesn’t agree. She says that women thought John F. Kennedy was sexy, but they wouldn’t have let themselves get carried away by it and talk about it publicly the way today’s Sex and the City-bots do.

So, there’s a way of framing the question of the female franchise. Is it possible for women to feel attraction to their polical leaders without letting that attraction control their thinking and their vote? Or must relatively restrained, 1960-type women inevitably turn into talk-like-a-French-whore, 2009-type women?

- end of initial entry -

February 10

Terry Morris writes:

Comment no. 6 is very funny.

Taking a shower and smoking a cigarette—-after having had sex with you, presumably?

And it’s somehow unclear what your husband is angry about?

Paging Dr Freud to the Warner residence! Paging Dr Freud to the Warner residence!

LA replies:

Yes, but I don’t think that Warner’s publicly expressed total lack of respect for her husband is funny at all.

Terry Morrris replies;

If her husband were any kind of a man she wouldn’t be writing things like that about him. But maybe that’s the reason she feels the need to fantasize about sex with other men in her own home while her husband is present, and about his being angry about it. Maybe there’s some kind of weird psychological deal underlying her public humiliation of her husband.

But I agree with you, that isn’t funny in any case, it’s sad and disgusting. What I found funny about the comment is that it seems completely out of place in that forum. Someone with some common sense actually came along and injected a little common sense into the discussion, for all the good it’ll do.

LA replies:

Yes.

These libs are, like, a total gross-out.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I saw that NYT article on Drudge Report and was mildly interested. I thought it would be more “political.” But, I was literally shocked at its content. When the writer decided to do a survey of her female friends, I clicked the article right off. I just couldn’t believe that a) such an article would be published on NYT (maybe I’m naive), and b) she was so forthright about her thoughts—and that she even had such thoughts.

On another note, she writes about the Obamas’ interaction as couple (this I did read in the first part of her article). I’ve always found the sexuality that Obmama and his wife demonstrate in public appearances distasteful and strange. It is as though they’re in their own little world. Or it could just be that they’re putting on a display. Nonetheless, it is really unbecoming of a President, and very uncomfortable to watch.

LA replies:

I did not read the whole Warner column and the comments. I got the general idea, and that was enough to grasp the grossness of it. But maybe I should read it

And speaking of grossness, let’s not forget the uber-gross Michael Medved, who during the campaign gave a speech to some big conservative conference in which he was virtually drooling over the fact that Sarah Palin is attractive and evidently has an active sex life with her husband, and isn’t this a great thing and a great thing for conservatism etc. (The way I’ve summarized it doesn’t come close to capturing the offensiveness of Medved’s manner and comments )

Talk about the vitalist stage of nihilism taking over our society.

Laura W. writes:

Judith Warner’s disgusting irreverence and raunchy self-display would have been inconceivable in a major publication just 30 years ago. There is only one thing in the recent annals of female publishing that rivals it. That was a discussion last year at the Mothertalkers blog (the female counterpart to the liberal Daily Kos) among women pregnant with boys. The women were consoling each other. A boy, they all agreed, is morally and spiritually inferior to a girl. The would each have to try to get over the fact they were going to give birth to the enemy.

By the way, your argument that women should not have the vote on the basis of their infatuations with leaders makes sense only when it is recognized that both sexes have a tendency in this regard and for this reason, and others, women should not be elected to major national positions. The reaction by men to Sarah Palin’s appearance proves that they are no different in this regard. It is possibly a more serious problem for men. [LA replies: Excellent point.] Of course, the idea that women should not occupy major offices could never seem more foreign to the prevailing culture than now. There has been a sudden and striking increase in the number of women in these positions and the Republican Party is proceeding full steam ahead with Sarah Palin for 2012.

Terry Morris replies to LA:

Well, I complained about the way that, in my view, Sarah Palin publicly humiliated her husband on stage at the Republican National Convention. It wasn’t the words she used, but her tone that told the whole story for me. Deep down she considers her husband to be some kind of a weakling, notwithstanding the fact that he does “manly” things like racing snow machines and so forth.

That’s not the same thing as what this woman is doing, of course, and it’s not the same despising, low opinion of her husband (and of the sacredness of the institution of marriage, by the way) that we see in the other, but there’s some connection here that I can’t quite put my finger on.

One wonders what the Obamas think of such? I’ll go out on a limb and say that they probably just think it’s “cute.”

Kidist replies to LA:

I just read the great entry on the “vitalist stage of nihilism” that you linked, and this caught my attention:

People deliver themselves over to an unending search for … the “richness of diversity” … the transforming “energy” that is produced by a society in constant change and motion.

Isn’t that what the Obamas bring to the White House? And haven’t these women eroticized all of that? And aren’t the Obamas subtly encouraging that with their open and sexually charged interactions on public stages?

It all gets stranger and stranger (to paraphrase Alice).

Robert B. writes:

I long ago discovered that some very neurotic women of the baby boom generation and younger have fantasies about married men—but not just any, those men that have happy marriages. It’s a competition thing wherein, they want what that other woman has. Of course it never enters their miserable brain pans that they do not have what that woman has precisely because of who they are and their very disturbing view of the world and their role in it. I had a friend post college who, though single, would wear a wedding band when he went to night clubs. He told me then—more than twenty-five years ago, that certain women were drawn to married men and wanted to conquer them in a competitive way, i.e., they specifically wanted another woman’s man as a form of “one-upmanship.” How twisted can you get? My guess is, is that they secretly hate their fellow females.

Lastly, the urge to copulate with Obama is a direct result of having the MSM shove the idea of the black male saviour down the public’s throat for decades now—Denzel Washington is a clear case in point. Every movie the man has made has been a remake of another, older movie where the hero was white and the heroine remains white. Pure, unadulterated propagandistic brainwashing.

LA replies:

I’ll have to check out some Denzel movies, as culture research. I’ve deliberately avoided all his movies since Glory in 1989 (which, if you take out the scenes with Denzel, was a very good movie). Every ad for a Denzel movie has been the same: the strutting, full-of-himself, and very race-conscious (and at least implicitly contemptuous of whites) black man. Whites would have to be sick to be drawn to that.

Jacob M. writes:

Did you happen to read the rest of Warner’s blog post? This jumped out at me:

“They do seem to have it all together—a great marriage, beautiful children, a modern day Norman Rockwell family,” said a divorced Harvard grad with children in a top D.C. private school. “Why them, not me?”

I think we have another item for the “things that used to be bad, but are good now that Obama’s President” files (see “patriotism.”) I’m 32 years old, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen a liberal make a positive reference to Norman Rockwell. For as long as I can remember, his name has been used by the cultural left the way they use Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet—a token of everything that was bad about pre-1960s America. When a liberal utters one of those names you know he’s referring to the evil, greed, corruption, abuse, and repression that allegedly ran so deep under the thinnest veneer of respectability these cultural icons presented us with. (Not to mention racism, since Rockwell’s illustrations portrayed an exclusively white society, and hey, while we’re at it, they were “heteronormative” too.) But now, President Obama has a Norman Rockwell family! Let us all rejoice! What’s next, an expression of hope that Obama will smoke out all the traitors from the US government just like good ol’ Joe McCarthy did?

LA replies:

Yes, but this is also a standard liberal move and did not start with the Obama phenemenon. If a conservative tries to assert something good about historic America, he is indignantly shouted down. But if a liberal asserts the very same good thing about America, it becomes a good thing. In liberal society, liberals call the shots, liberals determine what is good and bad.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 09, 2009 09:17 PM | Send