Via Instapundit: It is an absolute outrage how so many pampered, affluent, upper-middle-class professional women chronically spout snide anti-male feminist rhetoric, while they remain completely blind to the constant labor and sacrifices going on all around them as working-class men create and maintain the fabulous infrastructure that makes modern life possible in the Western world. Only a tiny number of women want to enter the trades where most of the nitty-gritty physical work is actually going on—plumbing, electricity, construction. Women have played virtually no role in the erection of those magnificent towers in every major city in the world. It's men who operate the cranes or set the foundations or wash windows on the 85th floor. It's men who troop out at 2:00 AM during an ice storm to restore power to neighborhoods where falling trees have brought down live wires. It's men who mix the stinking, toxic cauldrons to spread steaming hot tar on city roofs. Last year in a nearby town, I drove by a huge, chaotic scene where emergency workers in hazmat suits were struggling with a giant pipe break, as raw sewage was pouring into the street. Of course all those workers up to their knees in a torrent of thick brown water were men! I've seen figures indicating that 92 per cent of people killed on the job are men—and it's precisely because men are heroically doing most of the dangerous jobs in modern society. The bourgeois blindness of feminist leaders to low-status working-class labor by men is morally corrupt! Gay men, on the other hand, have always shown their awed admiration of working-class masculinity and fortitude. It's no coincidence that a buff construction worker in a hard hat was one of the iconic personae of the gay disco group, the Village People, during the Studio 54 era!
(Link to the whole thing.)
9 comments:
I disagree only to the extent that the stereotypical gay men's appreciation of tradesmen begins and ends with an interest in sex. Camille's trying to shore up support for her anti-feminist views - with which I agree - with a false appeal to gay men. Pitting identity groups against each other is entertaining but, ultimately, shoddy.
Her points are all valid (consider the paeans after 9/11 to the firemen and policemen, most of Irish and Italian (and thus Catholic) heritage who charged into the inferno of the WTC while the pampered, affluent, upper-middle-class professional women got out as fast as they could), but the feminuts won't listen because patriarchy because they can't find a man who wants them.
Obama voter says what?
Sure, but that indian chief was blatant cultural appropriation. Everybody knows indians are never gay, even if they are fond of being half naked in feathers. The Duke never would of shot them all if they were gay. No fort full of troopers is scared of a gay indian.
Paglia always offers an independent assessment of culture and is proud of her Italian immigrant, hard working, male dominated, upbringing. I often say, there are lesbians who love women, but have deep respect for men. Then there are the man hating lesbians, who dominate the movement, although they are the minority. Paglia is the former. Like Amartel, I don't agree w/ all she says. But all should respect her courage. She has been vilified for decades and she just keeps coming; the Joe Frazier of feminism.
A more butch version of Smokin' Joe, eh?
"The bourgeois blindness of feminist leaders to low-status working-class labor by men is morally corrupt!"
YES. Hell, yes. Well, except for all the class references. The rest of this is tired divide and conquer identity politics from a baby boomer Obama voter. Her one trick is to switch it up on the feminists. That's all. Same old identity crap, otherwise. It's not really that hard of a trick, either. Nobody actually likes the feminists; they don't even like themselves (hence the constant need for emotional reassurance). She's figured that out and exploited it. Clap for the lesbian. Yay. She uses the same sort of glowing, gauzy rhetoric to describe "low status" "working class" men that feminists use to celebrate women for giving birth and taking care of their children. It rings false. That she's a lesbian, of Italian heritage, and has working class roots, etc. is entirely irrelevant.
@bagoh20: I realize that your tongue is in your cheek, but there certainly were gay indians -- at least in California. From a diary keep during the first Spanish exploration of Southern California (1769):
Polygamy is not permitted among these people; the chiefs alone possess the right to take two wives. In all of their towns there was noticed a class of men who lived like women, associated with them, wore the same dress, adorned themselves with beads, earrings, necklaces, and other feminine ornaments, and enjoyed great consideration among their companions. The want of an interpreter prevented us from ascertaining what kind of men they were, or to what office they were designed; all suspected however, a sexual defect or some abuse among those Indians. read more
Who knew that indian tribes had HR departments, eh?
Post a Comment