So we are now entreated to the fistbumps and highfives of those who think that the most important aspect of US monetary policy has to do with the genital placement of the Fed Chairman candidate. Or should we say Fed Chairperson now since Janet Yellin is the official nominee. Personally I have nothing against Yellin. I am most certainly not an economist and have trouble balancing my own checkbook, so I couldn’t tell anyone whether her tenure is going to be helpful or hurtful to the economy. But what I do know is that her actions, or inactions, in fiscal management has to do with her understanding of how to manage the economy, not whether she is guided by a “female” perspective on society. (Inanity HERE)
This genderfication of thought is the progressives’ way of once again creating another subset in their subjugation of free expression through identity-politics. When it is predetermined how you are to think and feel, then the State has the right to dismiss you and your concerns if you do not follow the appropriate path toward enlightenment. It is part of the controlling need for the progressive-Statist to categorize everything and everyone around them in order to make the State central to the lives of the people.
This nonsense brings me back to a very interesting incident. One day when sitting in a chair at my beauty salon and discussing books to read, I happened to use the term “chick lit.” Well in no uncertain terms, the crone next to me started to regale both me and my hairstylist with how that term is offensive and she doesn’t want to hear it. (Apparently she had decided to police what everyone else happened to think and say in her general vicinity.) Since, getting my hair done was the time in my regime that I chose to use to unwind and avoid any conflict, I decided to not argue with the harpie and let it go. I basically just gave my hairstylist one of those “gosh golly gee whiz” looks about this strange women who had insinuated herself into our conversation uninvited. Personally though, I always found it rather inane that somehow according to the publishing business, I wasn’t supposed to find spy novels, international intrigue and military schematics interesting simply because I can give birth.
Funny however, so many decades later, I think back on that discussion and wonder how it relates to the issues surrounding Janet Yellin, or any woman in power. Society has decided for better or for worse, to categorize women along the lines of “sugar, and spice and everything nice.” (In truth anyone who thought this crap up has never experienced the lunch table of the clique-girls in middle and high school.) The concept that women are not capable nor able to function at the same level as men, or need to bring something decidedly “female” to a corporate boardroom or international leadership position, is quite demeaning and so terribly out of date. The idea that when women do show a type of militaristic or hardass inclination they are labeled male-wannabees is anachronistic.
This is the old-line genderfication of thought.This is a simplistic belief that how you view the world is based solely upon which set of genitals you happen to own. Apparently like the “chick lit” theory of book publishing, women are not allowed to be ruthless, militaristic and Machiavellian in their view of the world. Women who are subject to tyranny, famine and genocide will not somehow become fierce in their view of life, but will instead continue to imbue the world with this maternal nurturing instinct that calls for daffodils and rainbows in how they approach their own freedom and sense of survival. Humans who perpetuate this inane theory tend to forget that the most dangerous animal in the wild is a mother protecting her young.
According to the genderfication of expectations, Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir were said to be “male” in their worldview because they took a hardline attitude towards their opponents and their enemies. These women were derided in fact for not bringing into the international arena a more lady-like or softer approach to volatile situations. Not sure what the world thought these women were going to do when they were confronted with genocidal enemy armies, assassination attempts or a clash of civilizations. I suppose the world thought that these women were going to use their feminine charms to simply restructure reality? Of course this “progressive” thought still rages on as exemplified by the University of Colorado’s self-defense program. This bastion of higher learning tells potential rape victims that instead of carrying a weapon to protect themselves, they should simply either pee or vomit on themselves to become unappealing to the rapist. As if rape has anything to do with sexual appeal in the first place.
In the present day, Angela Merkel is of course, the poster-woman for not being female enough. Perhaps, her being German combined with the stereotype of the Bavarian Hun being what it is, the world tends to give Merkel a pass on the issue of the genderfication of her thought patterns. The world simply chalks everything she does up to being German, as opposed to a woman who simply doesn’t understand what it means to be female. Genderfication of thought though has its drawbacks too, as Benazir Bhutto would tell anyone. Simply bringing a female perspective to a volatile world does not mean the world is going to follow your lead. In fact, it can almost certainly get you killed. But hey every movement needs a martyr.
On the other hand, these genderfication proponents tend to make excuses for female terrorists, (Like Leila Khaled and Ahlam Tamimi) especially if these women target Jewish children or western democratic ideals. According to progressive thought these mass killers are somehow exciting and extraordinary instead of “male-like psychopaths” hell-bent on mass murder. Apparently gender thought as a guiding principle gets sidelined when the murderer decides to kill in the name of some third-world patriarchal society, misogynistic religion or age-old antisemitic conspiracy theory..
Meanwhile for the rest of us in the first-world, the idea that a woman can be intelligent, strong, forthright and quite frankly hard as nails in pursuit of her beliefs is seen as her wanting to channel men. The inability for society to actually accept that women can be, and are as tough, if not tougher then men at times, is beyond the reality of life. Somehow it still is easier to think that all women want is a time-traveling mailbox where you can send love-letters to your soul mate who happens to live in another time period. Somehow it sets the progressive-genderfication proponent on edge to contemplate the realistic fact that women in general simply don’t want any “bullshit” in life and they have no need of time-distortion to be able to happily function.
The issue becomes then why isn’t the concept of “men” thought versus “women” thought, insulting in much the same way the societal notion of “chic lit” could be thought of as derogatory? The idea that your gender somehow predetermines what you want to read and what aspects of life are most important to you personally is rather ridiculous. Women, like men, are more than their reproductive organs. They are composites of their entire experiences, both good and bad. Sadly progressives don’t seem to be able to identify with the reality that women are a sum of their whole, and not simply a womb with legs.
How Janet Yellin will handle the Fed is better summed up by how she has handled her other positions to date, not whether she has a set of ovaries, a vagina and breasts. It would be an interesting study to see if progressives ever give up this outdated notion that gender, race, and creed predetermine how you are to think, devise, interact and to which politically party you should belong. But then again if they ever gave up their allegiance to identity politics, and actually showed respect for the individuality of each person, these Statists might actually have to acknowledge that the American-founding-beliefs, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, were right all along.