Donald Trump: At Home in Postmodern America

Donald Trump is not a conservative—he’s a reality TV star thoroughly in tune with the passions and dynamics of mass publicity and social media. No matter how much he denounces them, he’s still a product of victim-based identity politics.

Source: Donald Trump: At Home in Postmodern America

4 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, Politics

4 responses to “Donald Trump: At Home in Postmodern America

  1. Musey

    Hi Libertybelle, I know you through Malcolm’s blog.
    Hello there!
    I’ll look in here from time to time, if you don’t mind. I’ve given up on Waka.
    The guys who write there are clever, super-clever, but for me, I’m over it. The expressed opinions have become more strident, repetitive, and a little more disrespectful.
    You mentioned that you were pushed into some training or other, and that you couldn’t perform in combat as well as men but you didn’t sign up for that.
    I live in Australia and we got the news here about women in the front line and we got the visual. Come on, these girls are indistinguishable from the men, shaved heads, massive build, strong. Like my husband said (and he’s a lightweight) “sh*t you wouldn’t argue”. Some women can do it but we’re not talking fifty/ fifty.
    What I find most irritating is where these “clever” guys extrapolate out the physical differences to imply that there is a correspondence to intelligence: men do Maths better, they always have, they always will. Aptitude.
    I don’t have a link here but I’m sure you can find the article written by Martin Sheehan for the Sydney Morning Herald. Malcolm knows him.
    Anyway,the HSC results were published this week and as he says the girls do better than the boys, overall. For many years girls have dominated the arty stuff and they still do, but now they also co-win maths and physics.
    I don’t care how many people say that the guys win hands down.
    There was an experiment conducted here where very clever young women who took the arts route were put into a scientific environment. So they went from law to chemistry. And they excelled.
    As a mother of a daughter I want her to know that she doesn’t need to apologize for being a mathematician. As a mother of three sons I need them to know how much I support them, as well.
    I’m not a crazy feminist but I do believe that women can match the men. Not in the front line even though some can make the grade, but in the classroom, and in the corporate world.
    I read Malcolm’s blog and he’s a decent guy, clever and measured, makes his point well. But I live with a man who is just as clever, who treats women as equals and who just says “why do you react to these people?”
    No more. I’m done, because I can’t win the argument and anyway these guys have entrenched views.
    My husband has an IQ which is “difficult to measure”. He believes in global warming, he’s an environmentalist. He is the kindest, funniest man. Sometimes I make him read these blogs and he is unimpressed. Like he says,” have some confidence in yourself girl.
    He tells my daughter who thinks that maybe she doesn’t measure up to her brothers, that she is every bit their equal.
    I was talking to one of my sons the other day. He has a first class hons from Oxford. I asked him if he believed that there was an intellectual gap between men and women. No, he said. No, definitely not.

  2. Hi Musey, Welcome! I had to “moderate” your fist post and approve it, because that’s how WordPress is set-up, but now that I approved you, any future posts of yours will post immediately.

    My point about my training was not about that I was forced to train to do something I had not signed up for. Soldiers willingly endure all sorts of hardships and I wasn’t upset about being assigned a task for which I was not confident I could do it. I was scared that I wouldn’t be able to do it. I am the type of person who approaches obstacles, even ones that seem insurmountable, with a nothing is impossible attitude, however often I talk myself into defeat, believing that I’m not good enough to do it. I did learn to become a machine gunner, but in the process I observed some alarming pitfalls to women in the Army. I was physically fit back then and maxed the physical training test for women. The unit I was assigned to did a morning run, usually around 3 miles, with a male soldier setting the pace. Most of the women lagged behind the formation and I learned my first week there that if you drop out a run, you’ll be headed to remedial PT later in the day and have to do that run all over again, plus the following morning. So, after that first time falling out of a run (running up and down the stupid mountain), I didn’t fall out of future runs, because I knew what was in store later.

    I had noticed this difference in female performance in basic training also, where in 1979, women and men were in the same basic training companies. My company had 2 platoons of women and 2 platoons of men. Even the most physically fit women struggled with training that required a lot of upper body strength. And in something as simple as marching in formation the strides of men and women are different, so the females had to use an unnaturally wider stride to keep up with the men. These differences are due to innate biology, not because women are not as smart as men. In tasks requiring a lot of upper body strength, the thing that is obvious is that even men who are not the most physically fit perform better than the most physically fit women on most of the tasks requiring a lot of upper body strength. The Army’s answer has been to eliminate most of those tasks from the training or lower the standard.

    So, while I learned to be a machine gunner, the even more important life lesson I learned from my husband, who was this cocky 82nd paratrooper, is “the mind controls the body, the body does not control the mind” and that attitude will teach you to get up and fight, even when you feel you can’t. I still doubt myself about my abilities to do many things, I worry about things, and I am a perfectionist, but his positive, can-do attitude taught me to just try. For instance I was afraid to drive and early in our marriage he insisted I learn – he kept telling me, “I’ll be gone a lot for training and you’ll want to be able to get out and do things when I’m gone.” It took months for me to work through my fear and to quit stopping every time a car came towards me. I can’t imagine not being able to drive now. If he hadn’t insisted, I wouldn’t know how to drive today.

    All that said, the issue with women in combat jobs, is those jobs require a great deal of upper body strength and stamina, that repeated studies all show the same thing – women do not perform those tasks as well as men. The men who join the infantry are in the upper echelon of men when it comes to physical fitness, so even if women can perform better than some men, they will not perform as well as the upper echelon, at many of the required tasks, especially those requiring a great deal of upper body strength. As a frame of reference away from politics, look at Olympic athletes and compare male and female results for weightlifting or track and field events. The US Marines did a very careful study of male and female performance at various combat arms skills earlier this year, that lays it out scientifically. These types of studies have been done for decades and conclude the same findings on physical performance.

    So instead of accepting there is a biological difference between men and women, feminists try to push to get one or two females through a training course and declare the matter settled, but what happens behind the scenes, the word comes down from on high that women will pass this course and the women get extra help or standards get lowered to get females through the course. The Army declares that no corners were cut for the females and one of two things happens over time – physical requirements gradually get dropped from the training to accommodate women or even worse, a double standard emerges, where pressure from above creates a quota system in practice, where if too many females don’t pass, the instructors will be accused of discrimination. So, in practice females get a pass, whereas a male doesn’t or extra-help is given to females to get them through. For me it’s very simple when it comes to war – standards must be high and not artificially lowered to accommodate a social agenda and that’s exactly what has happened for decades in the Army. Every male/female issue that arises over and over and over – high pregnancy rates, the lower physical abilities, the “drama” that ensues when you put young men and women together in close confines for long periods of time, etc, etc., it all gets ignored or alarming readiness problems get shoved aside to accommodate a feminist political agenda. In the US Army that agenda is driven mostly by feminists in political positions and female officers, who whine about their career advancement. There is not a single benefit to combat readiness by adding women into the most grueling combat jobs.

    I predicted the female Ranger school outcome in January – two females were pushed through and then the stories emerged from males who stated those women were assigned a special instructor to give them extra training and help and allegations that some standards were lowered. – https://libertybellediaries.com/2014/01/04/the-best-opportunity-to-succeed-code-for-lower-standards/

    Then in September the allegations started: https://libertybellediaries.com/2015/09/29/im-shocked-i-tell-you/

    Here’s the summary of the Marine Corps study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/280017557/Marine-Corps-gender-integration-research-executive-summary

    I believe in playing to people’s strengths, across the board. However, on national defense I believe in keeping high standards and keeping politics out of these decisions. If every study, since the 1970s when the US military started studying these issues, concludes the same thing about male and female performance on certain tasks vital to job performance and the same thing about disproportionate injury rates, I would make decisions based on that information, not pretend the information is biased.

  3. Musey, Oh, and the one field where I believe they should be recruiting more women is in military intelligence, because I believe women have better developed intuition, an amazing ability to read body language and notice far more details than men. For instance women always can recite what everyone was wearing at a party, who looked at whom and “did you see the way that guy was eyeing up that slutty woman in the red dress and his wife was standing right there” type observations. Women are a treasure trove of intelligence-gathering. Women score much higher on reading people, I believe and in military planning, trying to figure out the enemy’s intentions is crucial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s