So the powers situated to emplace
She That Will Not Be Denied on the Presidential throne feel they can finally wipe the sweat from their brow.
We have learned from yesterday's Great Debate that Mr. Trump objectifies and covets women's lady parts. Shocked, you say? Much like Capt. Renault, I s'pect. Puh-leeze.
Anderson Cooper -- that greatly underwhelming talking head who could not even win a round of dumbed-down celebrity
Jeopardy! (
Ranger had even a SEAL reader -- God bless you, Stevie -- who won a real Jeopardy! contest) -- came out of the gate like a snorting bull about Trump's sexcapades 20 years ago.
A real "gotcha" moment, eh? News worthy of being "broken" by a national paper like
The Washington Post (not). Kinda makes you proud to be an American, no?
But how does Mr. Trump's macho ways disqualify him from the Presidency? Are we riding some sort of crest of female empowerment of which I am unaware?
Less than 100 years ago, the 19th Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote. (The 15th Amendment granting black males that right was ratified 50 years earlier.) In the first blush of that voting rights victory, the Equal Rights Amendment, designed to guarantee equal rights for women across the board, was introduced to Congress in 1923.
Ninety-three years on, it has yet to be ratified.
Females currently compose a little over 4% of Fortune 500 company's CEO's. Women earn
80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, a gender wage gap of 20%. Intimate partner violence shows no signs of abating, and
20% of women report having been raped in their lifetime.
Forty percent of Americans are regular viewers of online pornography, and
20% of men say they have viewed porn online at work.
Candidate Trump is not accused of rape. Powerful and monied men are an aphrodisiac for some women (
news flash, right?) Trump does not hide his proclivities (
"I just start kissing them.") To be in the stable of a man like Trump is not to be surprised by his track record.
If we were honest, we would acknowledge that powerful men throughout history take their just desserts. Italy's
Silvio Berlusconi,
Dominique Strauss-Kahn ("DSK") and Russia's Vladimir Putin, are but a few. But let us look at ourselves first.
Innumerable United States Presidents have pussyfooted about with women to whom they were not married. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Warren G. Harding, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, FDR (
who died in the presence of his mistress), JFK and Bill Clinton (
both with teenage White House interns, among others) and LBJ. And the beat goes on.
These were all Gropers-in-Chief,
yet we turned a polite eye to their dalliances provided they steered the ship
of state with some skill and attention. Their inability to be emancipated men
-- whatever that means -- and overmaster their heady and hormonal drives did
not disqualify them from their job. Their opponents attempted, to a greater or
lesser extent, to utilize their actions against them.
Thing is, reporters -- when that was an actual profession -- used to enjoy habitual relationships with the Presidents. They had entree to the actual news, while agreeing to keep the sordid stuff out of the headlines. Nod, nod - wink, wink.
Make no mistake: The people who slandered these men did not do
so on any chivalric grounds of protecting women's honor. Any muck-racking was done with the sheer intent of toppling these men's presidencies.
Neither people nor the societal structures which house and instruct
them, have changed in the mere 2,0000 years when we wrote down some rules about
what we should and shouldn't so. (One might go so far back as almost 4,000 years
with Hammurabi's Code; in any event, we have not been operating under rules
approximately equable to all for very long, and the rules were certainly not equally
applied to women.)
Sadly today, the smut has become the kernel. Rather than a ship of the state, the next President will steer a ship of fools. Our behaviors have not regressed; we are the same nutty sexual monkeys.
What has changed is that voyeurism and exhibitionism have moved from the edge to the center. Representative Weiner can send an image of his over a cell phone, and someone like Anderson Cooper can make us think that the voyeuristic "bust" is actual news.
The move to accept the LGBTQQIP2SSA communities got you thinking the sky's the limit in terms of gender enlightenment? You may pat your smiling liberal self on the back, but think again.
Last Monday's
BBC America featured a two-minute story on the travails of newly-robbed multi-millionairess Kim Kardashian and her husband Kanye's end-of-show response -- approximately 7% of the network's world news broadcast for that day. Now ask yourself a question:
what makes Mrs. Kardashian newsworthy?
It is one thing alone, to wit: her massive tits and arse. You can't have it both ways, people.
Seen another way, what makes candidate Clinton preferable? Is it because she is monastic? Is she consistent?
In 1992 in the face of sexual misconduct charges against her husband, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton told CBS anchor Steve Croft that she was not a "stand by your man" kind of woman. She also asked the news media
not to turn the 1992 campaign into "a game of 'gotcha'."
But she ended up standing beside her man for future political returns and "gotcha" is now her game. Even then, her feminist creds were decaying as she worked hard to discredit every woman associated with Mr. Clinton.
This is the Caesarean Secretary of State Clinton who said of Libya's President's death by mob,
"We came, we saw, he died." Today, she is Lady Macbeth silently screaming,
"Out, out, damned spot!"
She has now morphed into
Grandma Hillary, a safe and sexless white woman with a milquetoast running mate in Mr. Kaine (an acceptable white male.). But Grandma Hillary is not toothless.
She is Jung's archetypal Old Crone, and she may subvert or conform to the power structure at will; she has nothing left to lose. She will not usher in an Age of Aquarius because she will have to be (
as Ranger puts it) a "Billy Badass" as the first United States female head of state.
If one believes what one reads, it seems that despite the amazing support that elected a Republican candidate
not even backed by his own party, Mrs. Clinton must win. It is somehow cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.
She is the politician between the two, and politicians become Presidents.
You couldn't have a haberdasher, or a community organizer or a peanut farmer, fer gawdssakes.
But back to the sex story. It is unlikely that Mr. Trump would grab for Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel's vajayjay for any reason, and is not she the only one who really matters? And did not our own President G. W. Bush err by attempting a back rub of the Frosty One?
The only one to watch out for would be Denmark's Prime Minister Helle-Thorning Schmidt,
with whom President Obama and England's David Cameron enjoyed a selfie (to the apparent disdain of Mrs. Obama). But the lovely Mrs. Trump should provide eye-candy enough to keep her husband's little hands at home.
But as Donovan sang, this may be the Season of the Witch. No het white male today is immune from excoriation at the press's whim. Secretary of State John Kerry was lambasted for his effete Spandex-wearing, Francophile ways. Now, Mr. Trump for his machismo.
So Trump wants to grab and kiss women? BFD. In a Don Draper sort of way, he is like a rib-eye steak in a world of crepe-y raw vegans. As it is written of the Big Macher in the Sky, so it could be said of Mr. Trump, "I am that I am".
(As for the shape-shifter Mrs. Clinton, there is no declarative "I AM" in her "I" -- only a reflection of her audience du jour.)
We could watch no more after this October Surprise. Such thin gruel for such a glutted audience
{FINAL UPDATE @ 11:31 PM, 10.11.2016.}