Heather MacDonald, “The Ladies’ Hour”

The media is getting ever more feminized. With predictable results. I listen to NPR’s “All Things Considered” (a complete misnomer), and it’s usually two women hosts, at least one of whom is a POC, interviewing a woman who is knowledgeable about a particular topic (I guess there just aren’t any male experts), although sometimes a gay guy named Ari Shapiro co-hosts. As MacDonald points out, there’s never any concern with the costs that American citizens incur from this flood of poor people (who will be allowed to vote ASAP). And it goes without saying that there are huge long-term costs to the White population as they are being replaced by people who, if they don’t already hate Whites, will soon be taught that the way to get ahead in America is to hate White people.

You could basically write the same article about female politicians. I’m certainly not saying all women are like this, but far too many women, especially college-educated White women are. I guess I am getting to be something of a misogynist in my old age.


Heather MacDonald: The Ladies’ Hour

By now the conservative complaint about media bias, however justified, has grown stale. Last Tuesday’s vice presidential debate between J. D. Vance and Tim Walz, however, highlighted another aspect of the mainstream media bubble: its feminization.

This was not merely a matter of the two CBS moderators’ prim efforts to cut Vance off:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, senator. We have so much to get to. . . . Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to. . . . Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to. Thank you [Senator] for explaining the legal process.

This feminization was not just a matter of the moderators’ self-righteous editorializing and one-sided fact-checking:

NORAH O’DONNELL: The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the earth’s climate is warming at an unprecedented rate.

BRENNAN: And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status.

It was not just a question of their setting Walz up for exculpatory or self-promoting responses:

BRENNAN: Governor, do you care to respond to any of those specific allegations, including that the Vice President is, quote, “letting in fentanyl and using kids as drug mules, among other things.”

O’DONNELL: Governor Walz . . . former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the ninth month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support? I’ll give you two minutes.

No, it was the choice and presentation of topics that most revealed the feminization of the elite world view. The moderators turned subjects that should have been landmines for the Biden–Harris record into indictments of Trump–Vance. This transformation was driven not just by contempt for the GOP ticket. It grew out of a reflexive focus on putative victims of conservative policies. More abstract questions of costs and benefits and less favored victims were all ignored.

The issue of immigration is a major handicap for the Democratic ticket. Even the mainstream press occasionally acknowledges the explosion of illegal crossings since 2021. That explosion was the predictable consequence of Biden’s evisceration of Trump’s border protections, above all the requirement that alleged asylum seekers remain in Mexico while making their asylum claims. The resulting flow of illegal aliens has inundated northern cities, usually exempt from, and indifferent to, border chaos. It has increased urban crime, burdened public services, and made a mockery of immigration law and national sovereignty. Trump and Vance had nothing to do with the ongoing illegal alien crisis.

But for the moderators, the problem was not that Biden’s border policies have inflicted the country with at least an additional 10 million illegal aliens, according to the House Committee on Homeland Security. (Ten million is only the number encountered by border agents; it does not include undetected crossers.) The problem for the moderators was how Trump may respond to that crisis—and, in particular, whether he would allegedly cause family separations by deporting parents whose children have obtained birthright citizenship.

This issue of “family separations” was a media obsession during the first Trump presidency and it would appear to be one again. (Of course, it is the deported parent who chooses to leave his child behind; nothing in Trump’s previous deportation policies required family separation.) The moderators’ first immigration question was:

BRENNAN: Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in American history and to use the U.S. military to do so. Could you be more specific about exactly how this will work? For example, would you deport parents who have entered the U.S. illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on U.S. soil?

The question of how to carry out mass deportations is not illegitimate. Trump failed to address the matter in his debate with Kamala Harris. Vance alluded to the most important part of the answer—self-deportation—in his necessarily condensed remarks. If workplace laws against hiring illegal aliens are actually enforced through programs like E- Verify, and welfare benefits shut off, a significant portion of illegals already here will self-deport.

How to deal with the illegals already here, however, is secondary to the question: how will you prevent more from coming in? The moderators never asked how a Harris–Walz administration would change the Biden–Harris policies that created the mess in the first place. Instead, they were obsessed with the alleged horrors of family separation. Brennan: “Senator, the question was, will you separate parents from their children, even if their kids are U.S. citizens? You have one minute.”

Walz got the broader version of the deportation issue. Brennan again: “Governor, what about our CBS News polling, which does show that a majority of Americans, more than 50%, support mass deportations?” It is not clear what exactly the moderators were getting at, but this was certainly not a hard-hitting question about the Biden–Harris policy failures. The CBS crew allowed Walz to get away with the claim that the recent border bill that Biden advocated and that Trump opposed was tough, even though it would have permitted thousands of illegal aliens a day to enter before authorizing law enforcement to close the border.

Childcare and paid family leave are not remotely within the federal government’s constitutional responsibilities. Nor are they the biggest problems facing the nation at the moment. But in a feminized paradigm (earlier expressed by the Obama administration’s “Life of Julia” cartoon), nothing lies outside the federal government’s purview when it comes to supplanting the private sector and the independent family.

When Brennan urged, “Let’s talk about families in America,” she meant “let’s talk about government programs.” Sure enough: “There is a childcare crisis in this country, and the United States is one of the very few developed countries in the world without a national paid leave program for new parents.”

There is a family crisis in America, but it is not the absence of federal paid leave. In 2022, 40 percent of all American children were born to single mothers. Black newborns faced a catastrophic 69 percent illegitimacy rate, while more than 53 percent of Hispanic children were born to unmarried females. Whites had a 27 percent illegitimacy rate; the rate among the white underclass is twice that. But a feminized worldview is not going to acknowledge family breakdown and the disappearance of fathers as crises.

Admittedly, solving family breakdown is also not a function of the federal government, even one open to more traditional understandings of civil society. Contrary to the dreams of policy wonks, no adjustments to the tax code can put the family back together again. But if the moderators want to “talk about families in America,” the primary issues should be: How do we restore the millennia-long understanding that children need their fathers as well as their mothers? And: How do we teach that traditional marriage is on average the best way to ensure that children are raised by both parents? … [Continue reading here.]

8 replies
  1. Rudolf
    Rudolf says:

    “I guess I am getting to be something of a misogynist in my old age.” Let us remember the Bible verse: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” But who are the sinners? Is it the women (who are too dominant) or the men (who are too submissive)? Why is sperm quality constantly declining? Is it related to soy consumption, plastic packaging and environmental toxins? Are feminine “behaving” men merely a product of their biochemical feminization? Presumably there is an interaction with ideologization, or a synchronicity. Even Jew Sax admits to a certain extent that Möbius, who incidentally shares his birthday with the operator of this website, was not completely wrong.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sax-on-sex/202405/ai-finds-astonishing-malefemale-differences-in-human-brain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Julius_M%C3%B6bius
    https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/%C3%9Cber_den_physiologischen_Schwachsinn_des_Weibes
    https://pdfhost.io/v/wtKc9pjVB_Paul_Julius_Mbius_Katinka_von_Rosen_On_the_Physiological_Idiocy_of_Women_1906
    https://pdfhost.io/v/aztIx4vXq_Paul_Julius_Mbius_Max_Runge_Teleology_of_Woman_1906

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Sax

    Women speak more deeply than 20 years ago: A study of 2472 test subjects from Leipzig has now revealed that Women speak more profoundly than they used to. The frequency with which women in Germany speak is decreasing. While men speak at a frequency of 110 Hertz, the average for women is now only 168 Hertz. In previous measurements, 20 years ago, the average was still 220 Hertz. So while German women used to speak a whole octave higher than German men, today it is only a fifth. In an international comparison, women in Germany speak lower than women in many other countries, such as the USA or Japan.

    Reasons why women today have lower voices: In contrast to the female voices, the frequency of the male test subjects did not change noticeably. This rules out biological or hormonal reasons for the development of the female voice pitch. According to Michael Fuchs, Professor of Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology at the University of Leipzig, smoking is not the main reason either. Instead, the reason for the study results is said to be emancipation, because: Today’s woman no longer wants to appear vulnerable and weak. Instead, she wants to appear strong and independent, so a deeper voice is used subconsciously. This theory is supported by the fact that women in high-ranking professions, such as presenters or politicians, also speak more deeply than the average. Other studies have shown that people with lower voices appear more assertive and trustworthy, while people with high voices are categorized as not resilient, says Fuchs.

    The importance of voice pitch in our society: Voice pitch and frequency still play an important role in modern society. It is a tool that has conveyed useful information in our evolution. The way someone speaks can convey information about their emotions, intentions and the expression of their personality. In German society, clear and understandable communication is of great importance, whether in professional or personal situations. In politics and at work, voice pitch and frequency play a role in how leaders are perceived. Experienced speakers use their voices to convey messages and influence the other person. Nevertheless, communication with each other has become easier and easier over the years, so a change in voice pitch alone is unlikely to have a significant impact on society.

    Erich Kästner’s poem “Ragout fin de
    siècle” from 1930 (Weimar period):

    Hier können kaum die Kenner
    in Herz und Niere schauen.
    Hier sind die Frauen Männer.
    Hier sind die Männer Frauen.

    Hier tanzen die Jünglinge selbstbewusst
    im Abendkleid und mit Gummibrust
    und sprechen höchsten Diskant.
    Hier haben die Frauen Smokings an
    und reden tief wie der Weihnachtsmann
    und stecken Zigarren in Brand.

    Hier stehen die Männer vorm Spiegel stramm
    und schminken sich selig die Haut.
    Hier hat man als Frau keinen Bräutigam.
    Hier hat jede Frau eine Braut.

    Hier wurden vor lauter Perversion
    vereinzelte wieder normal.
    Und käme Dante in eigner Person
    er fräße vor Schreck Veronal.

    Hier findet sich kein Schwein zurecht.
    Die Echten sind falsch, die Falschen sind echt,
    und alles mischt sich im Topf,
    und Schmerz macht Spaß, und Lust zeugt Zorn,
    und Oben ist unten, und Hinten ist vorn.
    Man greift sich an den Kopf.

    Von mir aus, schlaft euch selber bei!
    Und schlaft mit Drossel, Fink und Star
    und Brehms gesamter Vögelschar!
    Mir ist es einerlei.

    Nur, schreit nicht dauernd wie am Spieß
    was ihr für tolle Kerle wärt!
    Bloß weil ihr hintenherum verkehrt,
    seid ihr noch nicht Genies.

    Na ja, das wär dies.

    Translation:

    Here, even experts can scarcely
    Peer into heart and soul.
    Here, the women are men.
    Here, the men are women.

    Here the young men dance confidently
    In evening gowns with rubber breasts
    And speak in the highest soprano.
    Here the women wear tuxedos
    And talk deep like Santa Claus
    And light up cigars.

    Here the men stand stiffly before the mirror
    And blissfully apply makeup to their skin.
    Here as a woman you have no groom.
    Here every woman has a bride.

    Here, due to sheer perversion,
    A few isolated ones became normal again.
    And if Dante himself were to come
    He’d eat Veronal out of shock.

    Here no one can make heads or tails of it.
    The real ones are fake, the fake ones are real,
    And everything mixes in the pot,
    And pain brings pleasure, and lust breeds anger,
    And up is down, and back is front.
    One grasps one’s head.

    As far as I’m concerned, sleep with yourselves!
    And sleep with thrush, finch and starling
    And Brehm’s* entire bird flock!
    It’s all the same to me.

    Just don’t constantly scream bloody murder
    About what great guys you are!
    Just because you have intercourse from behind,
    You’re not geniuses yet.

    Well, that’s that.

    *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehms_Tierleben

  2. Alan
    Alan says:

    As wonderful and absolutely objectively true as prof. KM s elegant and firm points are ……fact is no *candidate *from either side of the Isreal firster uniparty will truthfully admit i or seriously discuss obvious Jewish human trafficking..Jewish child -sex trafficking or the nexus – connection between the Venezuelan crime cartels and the Jews…or the sheinbaum — millieu freakazoid show ..again..The Jews and the Mexican cartels…even some of persecutorial closed minded normies are slowly begining to figure out that THE JEWS are so fiercely advocating gun control to make sure no one interrupts their cartel weapons,sex trafficking and dope business… Great writing Kevin*

Comments are closed.