NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN was the TROJAN HORSE used by global banking 1% to kill all the gains of 99% of WE THE WOMEN----AND MEN over several hundred years. They did this by FLIPPING the goals of REAL left social progressive women fighting for 99% of women and made the women's movement about making the global 1% and their 2% of women extremely rich by killing 99% of US women.
The entire platform for our US women's movement was strong families, strong economy and wages, strong communities. That is what all of last century with US Constitutional amendments----Federal laws and Federal court rulings and precedence steeped in COMMON LAW did-----we discussed in detail what EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS did in opening the US economy to all 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown. The top issue throughout last century was to strengthen and maintain THOSE foundations. The empowerment of 99% of WE THE WOMEN came from REAL free market domestic economies with a SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION offering start up loans open now to women-----monopoly and anti-trust laws assuring that real domestic free market remained strong. This is what created strong local communities----US RULE OF LAW was enforced holding corporations accountable under law as everyone else.
The FDR NEW DEAL created broad public education K-university open to all 99% of WE THE WOMEN----it created strong public health and environmental justice to protect families, children, women against debilitating work and community toxic environments.
Our 99% of WE THE WOMEN had secured our rights to equal protection under law able to take to court issues of wealth assets and property. We were able to take to court our rights as citizens regarding privacy, enfranchisement, incorporation of business rights.
So, by the time the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN came along 99% of WE THE WOMEN had built a strong foundation we needed to protect and maintain.
What was MOVING FORWARD as NOW started to push radical feminism? FLIPPING our US domestic economy to overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. The Federal policies of REAGAN/CLINTON neo-liberalism LAISSEZ-FAIRE making the US policy all about making those global 1% and their 2% of women extremely rich by making those 99% of US WE THE WOMEN extremely poor.
This is when the economy of stealing from the poor-----continuous wars-----privatizing all that is public---ending all Federal NEW DEAL policies started MOVING FORWARD.
It's the Economy, Stupid
Album Hail to the Chief! It's the economy, stupid
A victory sign
It's the economy, stupid
Farmers' wives bring eggs
To the local market
To the store
Come in with groceries
And leave with groceries and money
Small farmers raise crops
For local markets
Up at dawn
Home at dusk
More in fallow
Than under the plow
Rich with earthworms
Anchoring forest borders
Now virginity is no longer fashionable
Even in our forests
We will harvest another crop
If we only live
Another hundred years
Man was the last piece
And has been playing catch up
Farming is a balance
Becomes the muscle now
Allowing us to work
Into the night
We plant our debts
Fencerow to fencerow
Every bitter dram
Of expert advice
...drunk with dreams
What we cannot use
What we used to raise
What we used to save
What we used to treasure
What we used to revere
What we used to love
It's the economy, stupid
I am not a nostalgist
I am a most pragmatic man
I look at what naturally occurs
In the living world...
And see diversity
I look at
Where your name
Is your credit
And decisions are rendered
By people who know you
Where you are more than
The five banks
And the four airlines
And the three newspaper chains
And the two big box stores
And the one-and-a-half political parties
And the one retort:
It's the economy stupid
And the standards
That demand that
Every teacher teaches
Exactly the same thing
And, like these students
I have to ask "why?"
It's the economy, stupid
Now those educated
Ride their buses
From their consolidated schools
Back to their small towns and farms
And cannot wait
To drive their cars away
On that highway of diamonds
Into the consolidated cities
Where they look back
Between what they know
And what they've been sold
It's the economy, stupid
The economy that looks
For the maximum return
For the quick turnaround
For the short term gain
For the unearned income
For the Big Lotto
It's the economy, stupid
And the economy
It has a short attention span
It is easily bored
It is hungry
It is late for its next appointment
It puts you on hold
It does not return your call
It's the economy, stupid
Has you working two jobs
It is mandatory overtime
It is expensive sneakers
Made by sweating children
It is cheap food
Picked by landless hands
It is good paying jobs
Disappearing from American towns
It is your closed up main street
And it is your boarded up mill
And it is your condo-minimized factory
And it is your cookie cutter mall
And it is not accountable
It is not America
It's the economy, stupid
The economy now has no borders
The economy has only one rule:
And the economy lies
The economy tells us it is about Freedom
The economy is about Dependence
Not on land
Have borrowed their way
Right out of farming
No government loan
No government program
Because the government
Is powerless now, see...
It's the economy, stupid
And the government is the economy's
It plays by the same rules:
The quick fix
The stronger army
The bigger bomb
The dependence on machinery
To do work
That can only effectively be done
When diversity is required
It's about economy
It's about small towns with
And baseball teams
A general store
A radio station
A funeral home
A filling station
It's about economy
While REAGAN/CLINTON were killing the US domestic economy NOW and far-right wing radical neo-liberal 5% to the 1% neo-liberals were TAKING OUR 99% OF WOMEN'S eyes off the foundation and tying goals of women to global corporate power and wealth.
This is when all those ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT FAKE 5% women freemason/Greeks national media and NGOs told our 99% of WE THE WOMEN were our LEADERS quickly bound themselves to the legs of global banks and global corporations. You could not shake those 5% global banking women off of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE handing all US corporations over to OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS not matter what. They PLEDGED after all to do ANYTHING they were told by global 1%.
While Bill Clinton was killing our US domestic economies, killing REAL free market local economies, killing all those Federal, state, and local public institutions tasked with enforcing and protecting the newly gained rights of 99% WE THE WOMEN----national media and global banking 1% WOMEN'S NGOs were pretending Clinton's deregulation of banks and corporate monopoly laws, distortions of legal definitions of what US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES could undermine as regards US, state, and local sovereignty------as US CITIES AS FAILED STATES exploded because US corporations were sent overseas and US city government and agencies deliberately kept any new local and domestic economy from replacing those US corporations------YES, AFTER ALL THAT ----THE US DOMESTIC ECONOMY FAILED. So, Clinton now creates that FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT policy goal of IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID to advance all the economic policies of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE INSTALLING GLOBAL BANKING AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS into our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
That is essentially taking the US and Europe back to before MAGNA CARTA----when global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS had all the power and rights---and our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE had none.....even those global 2% of men and women.
THIS IS WHEN ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS WERE EVERYTHING THAT SEEMS REAL IS NOT MOVED FORWARD IN WARP SPEED. NOW, NOTHING POLITICIANS OR MEDIA TOLD US WAS TRUE.
The media outlet SALON as MOVE ON was created just to sell Bill Clinton as being LEFT CENTER all the while being far-right wing global banking 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty. Selling WARREN and SANDERS as the new left populists----OMG.
Bill Clinton’s primary lesson: What “it’s the economy, stupid” means in 2016
After being on the wrong side of a key Democratic primary issue in ’08, the Clintons won’t make that mistake twice
May 1, 2014 6:55pm (UTC) SALON
In the face of economic struggles that have now spanned three presidential terms, many Americans remember the Clinton economy with a fondness usually reserved for a dear, departed grandparent. A booming stock market, jobs everywhere, budget surpluses, low poverty rates – Bill Clinton enjoys enough economic credibility that his speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention touting President Obama's record on the issue was described as a turning point in the campaign.
Hmmmm, ROBBER BARON ROARING 20s leading to imaginary economic gains ending in economic crash and Great Depression-----
That’s why it’s a bit surreal to see headlines like this one in today’s New York Times: “Bill Clinton Defends His Economic Legacy.” Per the Times: “Former President Bill Clinton, who has grown increasingly frustrated that his economic policies are viewed as out-of-step with the current focus on income inequality, on Wednesday delivered his most muscular defense of his economic legacy.”
That's right, Bill Clinton is defending his economic record not just against Republicans, but from criticism within his own party. If you’re looking for evidence that the economic inequality message is a powerful and lasting force in national politics, this is it.
The Democrats’ 2014 messaging is coalescing around income inequality in various forms – the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, and spotlighting the lavish and self-interested political spending of the Koch brothers. The mileage they’ll get out of those themes over the next few months will vary as Obamacare waxes and wanes as the political topic du jour, but it’s clear that regardless of what happens this November, inequality will push on into 2016 as a national issue.
Clinton’s speech, as the Times points out, can be seen as an effort to reestablish the Clinton brand on the right side of the inequality debate, now that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are emerging as standard-bearers for a more aggressive economic populism. If Hillary Clinton does run in 2016, the Clinton economic record will tag along behind her as it did in 2008, as will questions about how the Clinton administration fared on reducing inequality. A Center for American Progress report from 2012 found both pluses and negatives in the Clinton record, at least as it pertained to the tax code. The tax increases of the early '90s helped reduce inequality, but cuts to the capital gains tax in the late '90s had the opposite effect.
Of course, the Clinton record on economic inequality will provide a favorable point of contrast with pretty much any national Republican. GOP economic policy calls for steep reductions (or outright elimination) of the capital gains tax, opposition to (or outright elimination of) the minimum wage, and deep cuts to programs that provide income support to the poor. But as the Clintons learned in 2008, before you can think about the general election, you have to get there first -- and like Iraq in 2008, inequality is the primary issue of the day.
We have discussed often from where the term POLITICAL CORRECTNESS originated. It was Bill Clinton's inner circle staff person ----a male grad from global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE HARVARD ------and it was national WOMEN'S NGOs like NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN who promoted just what this article states------A RIGHT WING PHANTOM ENEMY.
This is when ordinary REAL left social progressive 99% women AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---I AM MAN AND WOMAN-----was turned into radical policies that neither left social progressive women nor right wing women wanted. It was designed to have all US citizens hating US FEMINISM ------totally erasing what our original 99% of left social progressive women goals and policy fights for several hundred years.
Make no mistake----political correctness came from the right wing---it came from global banking and OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----it came from a male perspective to be a TROJAN HORSE against gains of not only global 2% of women---not only those dastardly 5% of freemason/Greek women---but all 99% of US WE THE WOMEN.
'When Richard Bernstein published a book based on his New York Times reporting on political correctness, he called it Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future – a title alluding to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. In the book he compared American college campuses to France during the Reign of Terror, during which tens of thousands of people were executed within months'.
Now, our US public university women students were fighting over men opening doors for women----they were fighting over whether MANKIND eliminated WOMEN. We spent tremendous energy in women's studies research women's past while global banking 1% of men were killing our 99% WE THE WOMEN future.
'Nevertheless, the word mankind comes from the more gender-neutral use of the word man'.
Now our US 99% of WE THE WOMEN were fighting to be the SAME AS MEN-----we were WONDER WOMAN----we were VAMPIRES OF WALL STREET and corporate RAIDERS. All these radical feminist policies being far-right wing global banking 1% were being pushed by US national women's organizations led by 5% to the 1% freemason/Greek women---declaring war on our several centuries of WOMEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT GAINS.
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy
For 25 years, invoking this vague and ever-shifting nemesis has been a favourite tactic of the right – and Donald Trump’s victory is its greatest triumph
by Moira Weigel
Wed 30 Nov 2016 01.00 EST Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018119,962
Three weeks ago, around a quarter of the American population elected a demagogue with no prior experience in public service to the presidency. In the eyes of many of his supporters, this lack of preparation was not a liability, but a strength. Donald Trump had run as a candidate whose primary qualification was that he was not “a politician”. Depicting yourself as a “maverick” or an “outsider” crusading against a corrupt Washington establishment is the oldest trick in American politics – but Trump took things further. He broke countless unspoken rules regarding what public figures can or cannot do and say.
Every demagogue needs an enemy. Trump’s was the ruling elite, and his charge was that they were not only failing to solve the greatest problems facing Americans, they were trying to stop anyone from even talking about those problems. “The special interests, the arrogant media, and the political insiders, don’t want me to talk about the crime that is happening in our country,” Trump said in one late September speech. “They want me to just go along with the same failed policies that have caused so much needless suffering.”
Trump claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness. “They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else,” Trump declared after a Muslim gunman killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. “I refuse to be politically correct.” What liberals might have seen as language changing to reflect an increasingly diverse society – in which citizens attempt to avoid giving needless offence to one another – Trump saw a conspiracy.
Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”
“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”
Trump used the same defence when critics raised questions about his statements on immigration. In June 2015, after Trump referred to Mexicans as “rapists”, NBC, the network that aired his reality show The Apprentice, announced that it was ending its relationship with him. Trump’s team retorted that, “NBC is weak, and like everybody else is trying to be politically correct.”
In August 2016, after saying that the US district judge Gonzalo Curiel of San Diego was unfit to preside over the lawsuit against Trump Universities because he was Mexican American and therefore likely to be biased against him, Trump told CBS News that this was “common sense”. He continued: “We have to stop being so politically correct in this country.” During the second presidential debate, Trump answered a question about his proposed “ban on Muslims” by stating: “We could be very politically correct, but whether we like it or not, there is a problem.”
Every time Trump said something “outrageous” commentators suggested he had finally crossed a line and that his campaign was now doomed. But time and again, Trump supporters made it clear that they liked him because he wasn’t afraid to say what he thought. Fans praised the way Trump talked much more often than they mentioned his policy proposals. He tells it like it is, they said. He speaks his mind. He is not politically correct.
Trump and his followers never defined “political correctness”, or specified who was enforcing it. They did not have to. The phrase conjured powerful forces determined to suppress inconvenient truths by policing language.
There is an obvious contradiction involved in complaining at length, to an audience of hundreds of millions of people, that you are being silenced. But this idea – that there is a set of powerful, unnamed actors, who are trying to control everything you do, right down to the words you use – is trending globally right now. Britain’s rightwing tabloids issue frequent denunciations of “political correctness gone mad” and rail against the smug hypocrisy of the “metropolitan elite”. In Germany, conservative journalists and politicians are making similar complaints: after the assaults on women in Cologne last New Year’s Eve, for instance, the chief of police Rainer Wendt said that leftists pressuring officers to be politisch korrekt had prevented them from doing their jobs. In France, Marine Le Pen of the Front National has condemned more traditional conservatives as “paralysed by their fear of confronting political correctness”.
Trump’s incessant repetition of the phrase has led many writers since the election to argue that the secret to his victory was a backlash against excessive “political correctness”. Some have argued that Hillary Clinton failed because she was too invested in that close relative of political correctness, “identity politics”. But upon closer examination, “political correctness” becomes an impossibly slippery concept. The term is what Ancient Greek rhetoricians would have called an “exonym”: a term for another group, which signals that the speaker does not belong to it. Nobody ever describes themselves as “politically correct”. The phrase is only ever an accusation.
If you say that something is technically correct, you are suggesting that it is wrong – the adverb before “correct” implies a “but”. However, to say that a statement is politically correct hints at something more insidious. Namely, that the speaker is acting in bad faith. He or she has ulterior motives, and is hiding the truth in order to advance an agenda or to signal moral superiority. To say that someone is being “politically correct” discredits them twice. First, they are wrong. Second, and more damningly, they know it.
If you go looking for the origins of the phrase, it becomes clear that there is no neat history of political correctness. There have only been campaigns against something called “political correctness”. For 25 years, invoking this vague and ever-shifting enemy has been a favourite tactic of the right. Opposition to political correctness has proved itself a highly effective form of crypto-politics. It transforms the political landscape by acting as if it is not political at all. Trump is the deftest practitioner of this strategy yet.
Most Americans had never heard the phrase “politically correct” before 1990, when a wave of stories began to appear in newspapers and magazines. One of the first and most influential was published in October 1990 by the New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein, who warned – under the headline “The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct” – that the country’s universities were threatened by “a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform”.
Bernstein had recently returned from Berkeley, where he had been reporting on student activism. He wrote that there was an “unofficial ideology of the university”, according to which “a cluster of opinions about race, ecology, feminism, culture and foreign policy defines a kind of ‘correct’ attitude toward the problems of the world”. For instance, “Biodegradable garbage bags get the PC seal of approval. Exxon does not.”
Bernstein’s alarming dispatch in America’s paper of record set off a chain reaction, as one mainstream publication after another rushed to denounce this new trend. The following month, the Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz decried the “brave new world of ideological zealotry” at American universities. In December, the cover of Newsweek – with a circulation of more than 3 million – featured the headline “THOUGHT POLICE” and yet another ominous warning: “There’s a ‘politically correct’ way to talk about race, sex and ideas. Is this the New Enlightenment – or the New McCarthyism?” A similar story graced the cover of New York magazine in January 1991 – inside, the magazine proclaimed that “The New Fascists” were taking over universities. In April, Time magazine reported on “a new intolerance” that was on the rise across campuses nationwide.
If you search ProQuest, a digital database of US magazines and newspapers, you find that the phrase “politically correct” rarely appeared before 1990. That year, it turned up more than 700 times. In 1991, there are more than 2,500 instances. In 1992, it appeared more than 2,800 times. Like Indiana Jones movies, these pieces called up enemies from a melange of old wars: they compared the “thought police” spreading terror on university campuses to fascists, Stalinists, McCarthyites, “Hitler Youth”, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists and Marxists.
Many of these articles recycled the same stories of campus controversies from a handful of elite universities, often exaggerated or stripped of context. The New York magazine cover story opened with an account of a Harvard history professor, Stephan Thernstrom, being attacked by overzealous students who felt he had been racially insensitive: “Whenever he walked through the campus that spring, down Harvard’s brick paths, under the arched gates, past the fluttering elms, he found it hard not to imagine the pointing fingers, the whispers. Racist. There goes the racist. It was hellish, this persecution.”
In an interview that appeared soon afterwards in The Nation, Thernstrom said the harassment described in the New York article had never happened. There had been one editorial in the Harvard Crimson student newspaper criticising his decision to read extensively from the diaries of plantation owners in his lectures. But the description of his harried state was pure “artistic licence”. No matter: the image of college students conducting witch hunts stuck. When Richard Bernstein published a book based on his New York Times reporting on political correctness, he called it Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future – a title alluding to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. In the book he compared American college campuses to France during the Reign of Terror, during which tens of thousands of people were executed within months.
None of the stories that introduced the menace of political correctness could pinpoint where or when it had begun. Nor were they very precise when they explained the origins of the phrase itself. Journalists frequently mentioned the Soviets – Bernstein observed that the phrase “smacks of Stalinist orthodoxy”– but there is no exact equivalent in Russian. (The closest would be “ideinost”, which translates as “ideological correctness”. But that word has nothing to do with disadvantaged people or minorities.) The intellectual historian LD Burnett has found scattered examples of doctrines or people being described as “politically correct” in American communist publications from the 1930s – usually, she says, in a tone of mockery.
The phrase came into more widespread use in American leftist circles in the 1960s and 1970s – most likely as an ironic borrowing from Mao, who delivered a famous speech in 1957 that was translated into English with the title “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”.
Until the late 1980s, 'political correctness' was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically
Ruth Perry, a literature professor at MIT who was active in the feminist and civil rights movements, says that many radicals were reading the Little Red Book in the late 1960s and 1970s, and surmises that her friends may have picked up the adjective “correct” there. But they didn’t use it in the way Mao did. “Politically correct” became a kind of in-joke among American leftists – something you called a fellow leftist when you thought he or she was being self-righteous. “The term was always used ironically,” Perry says, “always calling attention to possible dogmatism.”
In 1970, the African-American author and activist Toni Cade Bambara, used the phrase in an essay about strains on gender relations within her community. No matter how “politically correct” her male friends thought they were being, she wrote many of them were failing to recognise the plight of black women.
Until the late 1980s, “political correctness” was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically as a critique of excessive orthodoxy. In fact, some of the first people to organise against “political correctness” were a group of feminists who called themselves the Lesbian Sex Mafia. In 1982, they held a “Speakout on Politically Incorrect Sex” at a theatre in New York’s East Village – a rally against fellow feminists who had condemned pornography and BDSM. Over 400 women attended, many of them wearing leather and collars, brandishing nipple clamps and dildos. The writer and activist Mirtha Quintanales summed up the mood when she told the audience, “We need to have dialogues about S&M issues, not about what is ‘politically correct, politically incorrect’.”
By the end of the 1980s, Jeff Chang, the journalist and hip-hop critic, who has written extensively on race and social justice, recalls that the activists he knew then in the Bay Area used the phrase “in a jokey way – a way for one sectarian to dismiss another sectarian’s line”.
But soon enough, the term was rebranded by the right, who turned its meaning inside out. All of a sudden, instead of being a phrase that leftists used to check dogmatic tendencies within their movement, “political correctness” became a talking point for neoconservatives. They said that PC constituted a leftwing political programme that was seizing control of American universities and cultural institutions – and they were determined to stop it.
The right had been waging a campaign against liberal academics for more than a decade. Starting in the mid-1970s, a handful of conservative donors had funded the creation of dozens of new thinktanks and “training institutes” offering programmes in everything from “leadership” to broadcast journalism to direct-mail fundraising. They had endowed fellowships for conservative graduate students, postdoctoral positions and professorships at prestigious universities. Their stated goal was to challenge what they saw as the dominance of liberalism and attack left-leaning tendencies within the academy.
Starting in the late 1980s, this well-funded conservative movement entered the mainstream with a series of improbable bestsellers that took aim at American higher education. The first, by the University of Chicago philosophy professor Allan Bloom, came out in 1987. For hundreds of pages, The Closing of the American Mind argued that colleges were embracing a shallow “cultural relativism” and abandoning long-established disciplines and standards in an attempt to appear liberal and to pander to their students. It sold more than 500,000 copies and inspired numerous imitations.
In April 1990, Roger Kimball, an editor at the conservative journal, The New Criterion, published Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted our Higher Education. Like Bloom, Kimball argued that an “assault on the canon” was taking place and that a “politics of victimhood” had paralysed universities. As evidence, he cited the existence of departments such as African American studies and women’s studies. He scornfully quoted the titles of papers he had heard at academic conferences, such as “Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl” or “The Lesbian Phallus: Does Heterosexuality Exist?”
In June 1991, the young Dinesh D’Souza followed Bloom and Kimball with Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. Whereas Bloom had bemoaned the rise of relativism and Kimball had attacked what he called “liberal fascism”, and what he considered frivolous lines of scholarly inquiry, D’Souza argued that admissions policies that took race into consideration were producing a “new segregation on campus” and “an attack on academic standards”. The Atlantic printed a 12,000 word excerpt as its June cover story. To coincide with the release, Forbes ran another article by D’Souza with the title: “Visigoths in Tweed.”
These books did not emphasise the phrase “political correctness”, and only D’Souza used the phrase directly. But all three came to be regularly cited in the flood of anti-PC articles that appeared in venues such as the New York Times and Newsweek. When they did, the authors were cited as neutral authorities. Countless articles uncritically repeated their arguments.
In some respects, these books and articles were responding to genuine changes taking place within academia. It is true that scholars had become increasingly sceptical about whether it was possible to talk about timeless, universal truths that lay beyond language and representation. European theorists who became influential in US humanities departments during the 1970s and 1980s argued that individual experience was shaped by systems of which the individual might not be aware – and particularly by language. Michel Foucault, for instance, argued that all knowledge expressed historically specific forms of power. Jacques Derrida, a frequent target of conservative critics, practised what he called “deconstruction”, rereading the classics of philosophy in order to show that even the most seemingly innocent and straightforward categories were riven with internal contradictions. The value of ideals such as “humanity” or “liberty” could not be taken for granted.
It was also true that many universities were creating new “studies departments”, which interrogated the experiences, and emphasised the cultural contributions of groups that had previously been excluded from the academy and from the canon: queer people, people of colour and women. This was not so strange. These departments reflected new social realities. The demographics of college students were changing, because the demographics of the United States were changing. By 1990, only two-thirds of Americans under 18 were white. In California, the freshman classes at many public universities were “majority minority”, or more than 50% non-white. Changes to undergraduate curriculums reflected changes in the student population.
The responses that the conservative bestsellers offered to the changes they described were disproportionate and often misleading. For instance, Bloom complained at length about the “militancy” of African American students at Cornell University, where he had taught in the 1960s. He never mentioned what students demanding the creation of African American studies were responding to: the biggest protest at Cornell took place in 1969 after a cross burning on campus, an open KKK threat. (An arsonist burned down the Africana Studies Center, founded in response to these protests, in 1970.)
More than any particular obfuscation or omission, the most misleading aspect of these books was the way they claimed that only their adversaries were “political”. Bloom, Kimball, and D’Souza claimed that they wanted to “preserve the humanistic tradition”, as if their academic foes were vandalising a canon that had been enshrined since time immemorial. But canons and curriculums have always been in flux; even in white Anglo-America there has never been any one stable tradition. Moby Dick was dismissed as Herman Melville’s worst book until the mid-1920s. Many universities had only begun offering literature courses in “living” languages a decade or so before that.
In truth, these crusaders against political correctness were every bit as political as their opponents. As Jane Mayer documents in her book, Dark Money: the Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Bloom and D’Souza were funded by networks of conservative donors – particularly the Koch, Olin and Scaife families – who had spent the 1980s building programmes that they hoped would create a new “counter-intelligentsia”. (The New Criterion, where Kimball worked, was also funded by the Olin and Scaife Foundations.) In his 1978 book A Time for Truth, William Simon, the president of the Olin Foundation, had called on conservatives to fund intellectuals who shared their views: “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”
These skirmishes over syllabuses were part of a broader political programme – and they became instrumental to forging a new alliance for conservative politics in America, between white working-class voters and small business owners, and politicians with corporate agendas that held very little benefit for those people.
By making fun of professors who spoke in language that most people considered incomprehensible (“The Lesbian Phallus”), wealthy Ivy League graduates could pose as anti-elite. By mocking courses on writers such as Alice Walker and Toni Morrison, they made a racial appeal to white people who felt as if they were losing their country. As the 1990s wore on, because multiculturalism was associated with globalisation – the force that was taking away so many jobs traditionally held by white working-class people – attacking it allowed conservatives to displace responsibility for the hardship that many of their constituents were facing. It was not the slashing of social services, lowered taxes, union busting or outsourcing that was the cause of their problems. It was those foreign “others”.
PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. “Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.
Soon, Republican politicians were echoing on the national stage the message that had been product-tested in the academy. In May 1991, President George HW Bush gave a commencement speech at the University of Michigan. In it, he identified political correctness as a major danger to America. “Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States,” Bush said. “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” but, he warned, “In their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behaviour crush diversity in the name of diversity.”
After 2001, debates about political correctness faded from public view, replaced by arguments about Islam and terrorism. But in the final years of the Obama presidency, political correctness made a comeback. Or rather, anti-political-correctness did.
As Black Lives Matter and movements against sexual violence gained strength, a spate of thinkpieces attacked the participants in these movements, criticising and trivialising them by saying that they were obsessed with policing speech. Once again, the conversation initially focused on universities, but the buzzwords were new. Rather than “difference” and “multiculturalism”, Americans in 2012 and 2013 started hearing about “trigger warnings”, “safe spaces”, “microaggressions”, “privilege” and “cultural appropriation”.
This time, students received more scorn than professors. If the first round of anti-political-correctness evoked the spectres of totalitarian regimes, the more recent revival has appealed to the commonplace that millennials are spoiled narcissists, who want to prevent anyone expressing opinions that they happen to find offensive.
In January 2015, the writer Jonathan Chait published one of the first new, high-profile anti-PC thinkpieces in New York magazine. “Not a Very PC Thing to Say” followed the blueprint provided by the anti-PC thinkpieces that the New York Times, Newsweek, and indeed New York magazine had published in the early 1990s. Like the New York article from 1991, it began with an anecdote set on campus that supposedly demonstrated that political correctness had run amok, and then extrapolated from this incident to a broad generalisation. In 1991, John Taylor wrote: “The new fundamentalism has concocted a rationale for dismissing all dissent.” In 2015, Jonathan Chait claimed that there were once again “angry mobs out to crush opposing ideas”.
Chait warned that the dangers of PC had become greater than ever before. Political correctness was no longer confined to universities – now, he argued, it had taken over social media and thus “attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old”. (As evidence of the “hegemonic” influence enjoyed by unnamed actors on the left, Chait cited two female journalists saying that they had been criticised by leftists on Twitter.)
Chait’s article launched a spate of replies about campus and social media “cry bullies”. On the cover of their September 2015 issue, the Atlantic published an article by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff. The title, “The Coddling Of the American Mind”, nodded to the godfather of anti-PC, Allan Bloom. (Lukianoff is the head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, another organisation funded by the Olin and Scaife families.) “In the name of emotional wellbeing, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like,” the article announced. It was shared over 500,000 times.
The climate of digital journalism and social media sharing enabled the anti-political-correctness stories to spread
These pieces committed many of the same fallacies that their predecessors from the 1990s had. They cherry-picked anecdotes and caricatured the subjects of their criticism. They complained that other people were creating and enforcing speech codes, while at the same time attempting to enforce their own speech codes. Their writers designated themselves the arbiters of what conversations or political demands deserved to be taken seriously, and which did not. They contradicted themselves in the same way: their authors continually complained, in highly visible publications, that they were being silenced.
The climate of digital journalism and social media sharing enabled the anti-political-correctness (and anti-anti-political correctness) stories to spread even further and faster than they had in the 1990s. Anti-PC and anti-anti-PC stories come cheap: because they concern identity, they are something that any writer can have a take on, based on his or her experiences, whether or not he or she has the time or resources to report. They are also perfect clickbait. They inspire outrage, or outrage at the outrage of others.
Meanwhile, a strange convergence was taking place. While Chait and his fellow liberals decried political correctness, Donald Trump and his followers were doing the same thing. Chait said that leftists were “perverting liberalism” and appointed himself the defender of a liberal centre; Trump said that liberal media had the system “rigged”.
The anti-PC liberals were so focused on leftists on Twitter that for months they gravely underestimated the seriousness of the real threat to liberal discourse. It was not coming from women, people of colour, or queer people organising for their civil rights, on campus or elsewhere. It was coming from @realdonaldtrump, neo-Nazis, and far-right websites such as Breitbart.
The original critics of PC were academics or shadow-academics, Ivy League graduates who went around in bow ties quoting Plato and Matthew Arnold. It is hard to imagine Trump quoting Plato or Matthew Arnold, much less carping about the titles of conference papers by literature academics. During his campaign, the network of donors who funded decades of anti-PC activity – the Kochs, the Olins, the Scaifes – shunned Trump, citing concerns about the populist promises he was making. Trump came from a different milieu: not Yale or the University of Chicago, but reality television. And he was picking different fights, targeting the media and political establishment, rather than academia.
As a candidate, Trump inaugurated a new phase of anti-political-correctness. What was remarkable was just how many different ways Trump deployed this tactic to his advantage, both exploiting the tried-and-tested methods of the early 1990s and adding his own innovations.
First, by talking incessantly about political correctness, Trump established the myth that he had dishonest and powerful enemies who wanted to prevent him from taking on the difficult challenges facing the nation. By claiming that he was being silenced, he created a drama in which he could play the hero. The notion that Trump was both persecuted and heroic was crucial to his emotional appeal. It allowed people who were struggling economically or angry about the way society was changing to see themselves in him, battling against a rigged system that made them feel powerless and devalued. At the same time, Trump’s swagger promised that they were strong and entitled to glory. They were great and would be great again.
Second, Trump did not simply criticise the idea of political correctness – he actually said and did the kind of outrageous things that PC culture supposedly prohibited. The first wave of conservative critics of political correctness claimed they were defending the status quo, but Trump’s mission was to destroy it. In 1991, when George HW Bush warned that political correctness was a threat to free speech, he did not choose to exercise his free speech rights by publicly mocking a man with a disability or characterising Mexican immigrants as rapists. Trump did. Having elevated the powers of PC to mythic status, the draft-dodging billionaire, son of a slumlord, taunted the parents of a fallen soldier and claimed that his cruelty and malice was, in fact, courage.
This willingness to be more outrageous than any previous candidate ensured non-stop media coverage, which in turn helped Trump attract supporters who agreed with what he was saying. We should not underestimate how many Trump supporters held views that were sexist, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, and were thrilled to feel that he had given them permission to say so. It’s an old trick: the powerful encourage the less powerful to vent their rage against those who might have been their allies, and to delude themselves into thinking that they have been liberated. It costs the powerful nothing; it pays frightful dividends.
Trump drew upon a classic element of anti-political-correctness by implying that while his opponents were operating according to a political agenda, he simply wanted to do what was sensible. He made numerous controversial policy proposals: deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the US, introducing stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional. But by responding to critics with the accusation that they were simply being politically correct, Trump attempted to place these proposals beyond the realm of politics altogether. Something political is something that reasonable people might disagree about. By using the adjective as a put-down, Trump pretended that he was acting on truths so obvious that they lay beyond dispute. “That’s just common sense.”
The most alarming part of this approach is what it implies about Trump’s attitude to politics more broadly. His contempt for political correctness looks a lot like contempt for politics itself. He does not talk about diplomacy; he talks about “deals”. Debate and disagreement are central to politics, yet Trump has made clear that he has no time for these distractions. To play the anti-political-correctness card in response to a legitimate question about policy is to shut down discussion in much the same way that opponents of political correctness have long accused liberals and leftists of doing. It is a way of sidestepping debate by declaring that the topic is so trivial or so contrary to common sense that it is pointless to discuss it. The impulse is authoritarian. And by presenting himself as the champion of common sense, Trump gives himself permission to bypass politics altogether.
Now that he is president-elect, it is unclear whether Trump meant many of the things he said during his campaign. But, so far, he is fulfilling his pledge to fight political correctness. Last week, he told the New York Times that he was trying to build an administration filled with the “best people”, though “Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn’t been working.”
Trump has also continued to cry PC in response to criticism. When an interviewer from Politico asked a Trump transition team member why Trump was appointing so many lobbyists and political insiders, despite having pledged to “drain the swamp” of them, the source said that “one of the most refreshing parts of … the whole Trump style is that he does not care about political correctness.” Apparently it would have been politically correct to hold him to his campaign promises.
As Trump prepares to enter the White House, many pundits have concluded that “political correctness” fuelled the populist backlash sweeping Europe and the US. The leaders of that backlash may say so. But the truth is the opposite: those leaders understood the power that anti-political-correctness has to rally a class of voters, largely white, who are disaffected with the status quo and resentful of shifting cultural and social norms. They were not reacting to the tyranny of political correctness, nor were they returning America to a previous phase of its history. They were not taking anything back. They were wielding anti-political-correctness as a weapon, using it to forge a new political landscape and a frightening future.
The opponents of political correctness always said they were crusaders against authoritarianism. In fact, anti-PC has paved the way for the populist authoritarianism now spreading everywhere. Trump is anti-political correctness gone mad.
WHAT THE HECK IS-----GENDER NEUTRAL?
National media, HOLLYWOOD, and all those global banking freemason STARS literary, stage, screen, music all creating a SOCIETAL FAD blending genders killing the very meaning of what is FEMININE and what is MASCULINE and this was supposed to be a WIN for 99% of WE THE WOMEN.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA where MOVING FORWARD gender blending as technology tied to robotics----tied to HMO HUMANS-----tied to eliminating all Western thousands of years of what it means to be FEMININE and MASCULINE.
Is all this public policy geared to our 99% of GBLT? We discussed in detail the goals of gender blending HMO HUMANS vs what our lesbian, bi, and trans women have as policy goals. Our GBLT need and want the same left social progressive policy goals as all last century---whether a lesbian couple want to marry----adopt a child ----have a family----be able to work to support themselves----these are all original left social progressive 99% of WE THE WOMEN goals and we always fought for 99% of women, black, white, and brown---GBLT----
So, now global banking 1% are distorting goals of GBLT women through these far-right wing RADICAL FEMINIST definitions of GENDER NEUTRALITY.
While national media and national women's NGOs are fighting for the need to change the entire language from MANKIND-----the need for GOD to be as much a GODDESS, global banking 5% of women were killing all last century's gains for 99% of WE THE WOMEN.
'Nevertheless, the word mankind comes from the more gender-neutral use of the word man'.
Think twice before using "mankind" to mean "all humanity," say scholars
Filed to: linguistics
What's wrong with "mankind"? It's at the heart of one of the greatest semantic debates of our time. Some say the word is gender-neutral and means "all humanity." To others, "mankind" sounds gender specific and means "a bunch of men without women." They prefer "humanity" or "humankind." So who is correct? To find out, I spoke with several scholars who study the history of the English language and linguistics — and even consulted an etymologist with the Oxford English Dictionary.
Nothing less than the future of mankind is at stake.
Photograph of astronaut Heidemarie M. Stefanyshyn-Piper via NASA
Where Does "Mankind" Come From?
In modern English, we use the word "man" to mean "a male person." Earlier in the development of our language, "man" was used to mean "humans," but that time has passed. As the Oxford English Dictionary's principle etymologist Philip Durkin told io9:
The word man is now rare in the meaning "human being in general" . . . Already in the 1800s it was largely confined to literary or proverbial use in this meaning, other words such as person or people being more commonly used instead.
Nevertheless, the word mankind comes from the more gender-neutral use of the word man.
Or rather, the word man comes from a very different word, "mann," used in a language spoken over 1,000 years ago on an island where England and Scotland are today. That language is called Old English or Anglo-Saxon, and it was spoken and written down by the dominant English island tribes of the late first millennium AD. Unlike modern English, Anglo-Saxon had two words that could mean male: mann, which could also mean "humans," and "wæpenmann," which meant "person with a weapon and/or penis," and only referred to males.
University of Pennsylvania linguist Anthony Kroch explains that the original Anglo-Saxon "mann" is called an autohyponym, or "a word which can mean both a member of a category and a member of one of its subcategories." He added:
This happens with animal names quite a lot: dog/bitch, fox/vixen, goose/gander, duck/drake. In these pairs, the first member both means the animal in general and one sex of the animal. Another example might be: house/apartment, where "house" can either mean a free standing human dwelling or any dwelling.
In modern English, man is used very infrequently as an autohyponym. Possibly that's because it's become too confusing to use "man" — it's hard to know what it means in any given context when we have no word like wæpenmann that refers exclusively to males. But we do have the words "person" and "human" that clearly refer to both sexes, so those have eclipsed "man" when speaking about everyone. Linguistics researcher Dave Wilton, author of Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends explains:
In modern English we only have the unmarked "man" and the marked "woman" to refer to the two sexes, but in Old English there was also the marked "wæpenmann" that referred only to males (literally "weapon-man," either referring to arms or to the penis) and "wif" and "wifmann" meaning "woman" (the origin of the modern "wife" and "woman"). So in Old English "mann" is a bit more gender neutral than "man" is in modern English, but not entirely so.
Basically, in modern English, we have no equivalent to the word "mann." Our contemporary word man may look more like "mann," but over time its use has evolved to be closer to "wæpenmann," a male person.
The word "mankind" can be traced back to a specific use of this lost word "mann" from the Anglo-Saxon word "mann-cynn," meaning both a group of men and all humanity. The OED's Durkin said, "The word mankind was formed from man and kind [as in] 'type, sort.' It has always much more typically shown the meaning 'humanity in general' rather than 'adult male human beings in general'." But, he cautioned, the word "man" is rarely used these days to mean "all humanity." So "mankind" retained its gender-neutral meaning in English for much longer than "man" did.
What is Gender Neutral?
But when you're talking about something as messy as the evolution of language, nothing is ever that simple. You can't just throw around a term like "gender neutral" without interrogating what exactly that means. "A word like 'person' is presumably gender neutral because it carries no information about the sex of its referent," Kroch said. "Is an autohyponym like 'mann' not gender neutral because it can mean either 'person' or 'male person'?"
Several scholars seemed to feel that the word "mann-cynn" may not have been as neutral as you'd think. UC Santa Barbara professor and Anglo-Saxon expert Carol Pasternack commented:
I don't think it is possible to tell whether the word [mankind] derives from "man" as a neuter pronoun or from "man" as a male human (both were possible).
She raises a good point that many contemporary English speakers forget. Just because we view the word "mankind" as neutral doesn't mean that it was originally used that way.
NYU Anglo Saxon researcher Mo Pareles amplifies Pasternack's point:
While it's appropriate to translate the Old English "mann-cynn" as either mankind or humanity, it's disingenuous to imagine that this usage comes without sexist trappings. Although women had important roles in Anglo-Saxon society—don't imagine them as Victorian house-angels or 1950s housewives—Anglo-Saxons had one concept for "humanity" and "mankind" in large part because they had a male-dominated concept of humanity.
To a person who spoke Anglo-Saxon, the word "mann-cynn" may have been synonymous with "humanity" because they didn't think women were important. From the perspective of people 1,000 years ago, humanity really was "a group of men."
Anglo-Saxon culture was so dramatically different from our own that it may not be appropriate to use terms like "gender neutral" to describe concepts like "Mann" and "Mann-cynn." The very idea of gender neutral terms is a relatively modern invention. Projecting it back into the 900s might erase the true historical meanings of these terms, which were after all used by people who would never have dreamt that one day women would define humankind as much as men did.
Should You Use "Mankind" or "Humanity"?
Given the ambiguous history of our language, what is a modern speaker and writer to do? Should we keep using "mankind" because its historical use sort of fits into an idea of "gender neutrality" we invented relatively recently? Pasternack has a simple answer:
Regarding using a term today as gender-neutral because it seems likely to be gender-neutral in the 10th or even the fifteenth century, meanings are what they are today, not what they were then. Many words change meaning and tone over time.
Given that today's use of the word "man" is almost never gender neutral, that would seem to suggest that we should be using "humanity" or "humankind" if we want to be precise.
Of course word meanings only come from collective use. If the vast majority of people believe a word means something, well, that's what it means. And many of the scholars felt that there is strong evidence that the word "mankind" has been eclipsed by the word "humanity." Kroch showed me a quick chart he'd made, tracking the popularity of the words "mankind" and "humanity" in Google's massive text corpus.
It shows that the use of "mankind," relative to the use of "humanity," has been declining since the beginning of the 19th century but that it's only since 1980 that "humanity" has been more frequent than "mankind." This trend might mean that "mankind" is on its way out as an autohyponym but it's dangerous to project linguistic trends like this into the future.
The OED's Durkin agreed with Kroch's assessment, as well as his caution about being too quick to declare mankind dead:
Most corpora suggest that humanity is more common than mankind in recent English usage, and that mankind is coming to be used less frequently than it previously was, but that mankind remains not particularly rare. The trends in the use of these two words would be well worth watching over the coming years. It may well be the case that a more decisive shift away from using mankind could be in progress, but this would need some careful corpus-based study to confirm.
You can see this shift happening even in popular culture. Consider the famous opening lines of the Star Trek TV show. In the 1960s, when the original show aired, the starship Enterprise was on a mission "to boldly go where no man has gone before." By the late 1980s, when Star Trek: The Next Generation aired, this mission was "to boldly go where no one has gone before." This change was not a nod to political correctness, as Kroch's chart makes clear. It was simply a reflection of how quickly the use of "man" and "mankind" were changing throughout the English language.
But even if most people are no longer using "mankind" to mean "all humans," shouldn't we be true to the origins of the term? Doesn't mankind mean "all humans" because that's what it meant historically? Said Wilton:
Using etymology to govern usage is known as the "etymological fallacy." Usage is governed by, you guessed it, use, not the origin of the word. The origin, of course, influences how a word is used in that it provides the starting point, but meanings shift over time, and lexicographers come up with their definitions by surveying how people actually use the words, not by studying the etymology. In other words, it is unreasonable to determine today's usage based on how the language was used a thousand years ago. If it were reasonable, we'd still be using "silly" to mean "blessed, fortunate" and "awful" to mean "inspiring wonder.". . . If people today perceive it as sexist, it is sexist, regardless of how it was used in ages past.
Words are what they mean right now, and over the past forty years "humanity" has become more acceptable than "mankind" if you want to refer to all human beings, both male and female.
Or, as Pareles put it succinctly, "In my opinion, 'humanity' and 'humankind' are the appropriate words in contemporary English."
Feminism in The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka'
Remember, CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were pre-WEIMAR global corporate FASCISM in today's US-----indeed, all that political correctness----all that sudden need to change LANGUAGE surrounding what defines WOMAN-----all having the goal of KILLING 99% OF WOMEN-----was indeed far-right wing LIBERTARIAN CORPORATE FASCISM.
At the same time Clinton and his band of 5% global banking NEO-LIBERALS were corrupting the very meaning of what being LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE meant. So, now it was left social progressive goals of these several centuries that were LIBERAL FASCISM-----and not FLIPPING our DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM from SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE -----to global banking ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVE goals of making the global 1% rich more rich and powerful.
'Whereas Bloom had bemoaned the rise of relativism and Kimball had attacked what he called “liberal fascism”, and what he considered frivolous lines of scholarly inquiry, D’Souza argued that admissions policies that took race into consideration were producing a “new segregation on campus” and “an attack on academic standards”'.
The central theme in ALICE IN WONDERLAND was never feeling quite as oneself---always changing and not caring-----as MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE made ALICE one moment small one moment tall to assure ALICE WOULD BE TEN FEET TALL.
KAFKA was that global banking 1% freemason STAR writing just this transformation ---METAMORPHOSIS man to cockroach-----taking civilized society being BORING AND STAGNANT back to the beginning ---the cockroach being one of the oldest species of animals that always survive great EARTHLY upheavals.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and all of what was REAL left social progressive labor and justice organizations, including our 99% of REAL left women's goals were FLIPPED and women started fighting women. REAL left social progressive academics and women have been fighting these RADICAL FEMINIST designations these few decades KNOWING they were always far-right global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Feminism in The Metamorphosis
by Franz Kafka No description bymissy swag on 8 October 2014
Transcript of Feminism in The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
Missy, Klara, Sam, Arianna
Feminism in the Early 1800s
Viewpoint of Males Cont.
• It’s the It’s the man’s job to provide for the family. It’s the man’s job to provide for the family.
– “Now his father was still healthy, certainly, but he was an old man who had not expected to undertake too much…And was his old mother now supposed to go out and earn money, when she suffered from asthma, when a walk through the apartment was already an ordeal for her…And was his sister now supposed to work – who for all her seventeen years was still a child and whom I would be such a pity to deprive of the life she had led until now, which had consisted of wearing pretty clothes, sleeping late, helping in the house, enjoying a few modest amusements, and above all playing the violin?” (27).
Women Fulfill Typical Gender Roles
• There are some typical gender roles that are expected to be fulfilled by the women. This tells us that women still have expected roles in society based on their gender.
– “[His mother]…caught sight of the gigantic brown blotch on the flowered wallpaper…and as if giving up completely, she fell with outstretched arms across the couch and did not stir” (34).
– “‘On the contrary,’ said the middle roomer. ‘Wouldn’t the young lady like to come in to us and play in here where it’s much roomier and more comfortable?’” (45).
– “It now seemed only too obvious that they were disappointed in their expectation of hearing beautiful or entertaining violin playing, had had enough of the whole performance, and continued to let their peace be disturbed only out of politeness” (46).
– “ In spite of all the troubles which had turned her cheeks pale, [Grete] had blossomed into a good-looking, shapely girl…they thought that it would soon be time, too, to find her a good husband” (55).
The Viewpoint of Males in the Story
• In general, women are the weaker sex.
– “[Gregor] felt very proud that he had been able to provide such a life in so nice an apartment for his parents and his sister. But what now if all the peace, the comfort, the contentment were to come to a horrible end?” (21).
- "Now Gregor could here the two frail women moving the old chest of drawers-heavy for anyone" (31).
- "because his mother did not understand everything the first time around" (26).
by Franz Kafka
Women Fulfill Typical Gender Roles Cont.
• Women are shown performing the standard gender roles, but towards the end, it’s the women who take charge and choose to move on. The fact that women are actually displayed overcoming these expected gender roles brings up the idea that despite what society may believe about women, they are actually stronger than many make them out to be.
– “‘It has to go,’ cried his sister. ‘That’s the only answer, Father. You just have to try to get rid of the idea that it’s Gregor. Believing it for so long, that is our real misfortune’” (49).
- "'Maybe he's seriously ill, and here we are, torturing him. Grete! Grete!'" (12).
• The women are filling the gender role of taking care of the men, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are subordinate to men because the men themselves are incapable of doing the jobs the females are performing.
– “So [his sister] got it into her head to make it possible for Gregor to crawl on an altogether wider scale by taking out the furniture which stood in his way…But she was not able to do this by herself; she did not dare ask her father for help…So there was nothing left for his sister to do except to get her mother one day when their father was out” (30).
- "no human being beside Grete was ever likely to set foot" (32).
Women Fulfill Typical Gender Roles Cont.
Men and Women are Equal
• The role of who takes care of the family has changed – instead of just the man (Gregor), it’s now a job equally shared by the males and the females (father, mother, sister).
– “[The family] discussed their prospects for the time to come, and it seemed on closer examination that these weren’t bad at all, for all three positions…were exceedingly advantageous and especially promising for the future” (55).
–"They got up, went to the window, and stayed there, holding each other tight" (54).
– "and leaning on the two women, he would get up laboriously, as if he were the greatest weight on himself, and let the women lead him to the door, where, shrugging them of, he would proceed independently ..." (39).
• Women don’t necessarily have to rely on men just because they are women.
– “They would now take a smaller and cheaper apartment, but one better situated and in every way simpler to manage than the old one, which Gregor had picked for them” (55).
We will bring GO AS ALICE in WONDERLAND THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS into discussion tomorrow by simply stating the obvious-----when we discussed PANDORA as the first women mother of earth------when we discussed the origin of MOTHER EARTH as DEMETER/PERSEPHONE -----when we discuss MOTHERLAND as empire------we are looking at thousands of years of language identifying creators as MOTHERS ----the most ruthless of mafia kingpins respect that MOTHER.
When we see an image of ALICE falling down a rabbit hole there are lots of symbolism attributed to that one image. ALICE ----DOROTHY in Wizard of OZ-----are less symbols of women----exclusively symbols of empire----the entirety of a nation/culture. It sets the platform for government as STATE to be the source of nurturing, discipline, molding of character. So, ALICE IN WONDERLAND written in mid-1800s by a very intelligent staff of our favorite TRINITY COLLEGE/TRINITY CHURCH OXFORD-----that original OLD WORLD IVY LEAGUE pulling the strings of all that happens in US these few decades. The symbolism in ALICE is steeped in JAMES BOND 007 geo-political intrigue, goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
Here we have that GENDER IDENTITY/BLENDING non-issue taking even that thousands of years' history of language to task.
Since Dodgson/Lewis Carroll wrote ALICE academics educating on public policy have decoded the elements of this simple and beautiful tale. We have known throughout last century to what goals ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE had in flipping the EARTH'S economic axis---killing thousands of years of Western society bringing us back to 3000BC --1000BC and so have those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS and their global 2% of players. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were top guns in MOVING FORWARD warp speed.
ALICE FALLING DOWN A HOLE TO MIDDLE EARTH---MIDDLE KINGDOM with all kinds of animals and symbols telling us where RABBIT is taking ALICE.
‘Father’ carries connotations of strength and power, while the word ‘mother’ is habitually linked to love, nurturing, and fertility'
Identity crisis: motherland or fatherland?
In 2015, people across the globe commemorated the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
In Russia, the grand public holiday that marks the end of this ‘Great Patriotic War’ (Velikaya Otechestvennaya voina/Великая Отечественная война in Russian) is one of the highlights of the calendar year. Victory Day (Den’ Pobedy/День Победы) celebrations are almost unrivalled in their pomp and circumstance: on 9 May this year about 16,000 troops are expected to parade on Red Square to commemorate the Soviet victory and acknowledge their forebears, the defenders of Mother Russia.
How did we come to associate the world’s largest country with maternity? And when it comes to using ‘motherland’ or ‘fatherland’, are there any rules?
Mother Russia and Uncle Sam
‘Mother Russia’ is closely connected to the word that Russian speakers use most frequently to mean ‘homeland’: rodina (родина), usually translated as ‘motherland’. Perhaps more important than the fact that rodina is a feminine noun (indicated by its final –a) is its stem rod- (род-) and its variants, which link to family, birth, and procreation, for example in the noun roditel’ (родитель, meaning ‘parent’) and the verb rozhat’ (рожать, or ‘give birth’).
Rod– is also found in narod (народ, ‘people’) and priroda (природа, meaning ‘nature’), these powerful connections arguably making the word rodina more emotive to the Russian ear than ‘motherland’ might be to an English speaker. Soviet propaganda posters of the Second World War era rallied support with the slogan za rodinu! (за Родину!, or ‘for the Motherland!’). The spirit of the nation was personified by ‘Mother Russia’ (Rossiya-Matushka/Россия-Матушка), in the same way that Uncle Sam had earlier come to represent the US. Many statues that commemorate those who fought in the Great Patriotic War take the form of Mother Russia, such as the behemoth ‘The Motherland Calls’ in Volgograd.
The Russian equivalent of ‘fatherland’, otechestvo (отечество), is rarely used beyond the realm of political rhetoric. Nor is the word otchina (отчизна), which carries a similar meaning to otechestvo but is actually a feminine noun. Russia, it seems, is very much a woman.
Land of my fathers
‘Fatherland’ can be linked to the same era, having featured heavily in newsreels about Nazi Germany. The German Vaterland was used in wartime state propaganda and nationalist rhetoric, and some commentators have observed that usage of the word has declined in the seventy years since the end of the Second World War. Nevertheless, Vaterland does appear in the lyrics of the German national anthem: Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit; Für das deutsche Vaterland! (‘Unity and justice and freedom; For the German fatherland!’). A German speaker might also refer to his or her home country as Mutterland (‘motherland’) or Heimatland (‘native land’), with the former suggesting familial ties.
Germany isn’t the only ‘fatherland’: the Estonian equivalent isamaa (isa means ‘father’) appears in Estonia’s national anthem, and Vaterland is sung by the Swiss in the German lyrics of their national anthem, Schweizerpsalm. Wales is often referred to as the ‘Land of My Fathers’, as the title of its national anthem Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Nhad meaning ‘father’) suggests.
However, when it comes to talking about the land we call home, things aren’t always so straightforward. In English, someone who loves his or her country is a patriot – a word that derives from the Greek patrios, ‘of one’s fathers’. In many Romance languages, the closest equivalent to ‘homeland’ shares this root: la patrie in French, la patria in both Spanish and Italian, and a pátria in Portuguese. Despite their masculine roots, all of these nouns are feminine, and can be translated as ‘fatherland’, ‘motherland’ or ‘homeland’ depending on the context in which they are used. Just to add to the confusion, French speakers also use the phrase la mère patrie: a feminine noun phrase that includes both ‘mother’ and a noun that has its roots in ‘father’. Literally, ‘Mother Fatherland’!
Connections to fertility
So what can we conclude? When to use ‘motherland’ or ‘fatherland’ in English is largely down to individual interpretation. ‘Father’ carries connotations of strength and power, while the word ‘mother’ is habitually linked to love, nurturing, and fertility: although Wales is the ‘land of the fathers’, its island of Anglesey was historically known as Mam Cymru (‘Mother of Wales’) thanks to its fertile soil and abundant crops.
If you aren’t sure which word to choose, it’s perhaps best to stick to the seemingly-neutral noun ‘homeland’ – although the connotations of this might open a whole new can of worms…