Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Oct 04, 2024, 06:28AM

Real Men Aren’t Afraid of Powerful Women

From Zeus to Vance to troll commenters, only the weakest men fear women.

13douthatnew zcjv mediumsquareat3x.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Have you seen the Netflix series KAOS, the modern-day take on Greek mythology starring Jeff Goldblum as Zeus? It’s fantastic. In today’s political climate, it’s hard not to see a parallel between the bottomless (albeit entertaining) narcissism of the fictional Zeus as dictator as it relates to the wannabe dictator we have as a presidential candidate in Trump. The misogyny exemplified in the series would surely be applauded by VP candidate Vance; as much as the snake-oil salesman tried to use fancy Yale-speak in the debate this week, his vitriol for women is thinly veiled beneath his guyliner.

What is Vance’s problem with women? Or Trump’s? Ms. magazine couched the Vance misogyny as “rage always conceals hurt,” describing his “childless cat lady” views as “mockery that reduces us to our reproductive capacity in a political context where women are already devalued.” In one of his right-wing podcast interviews, Vance said professional women “choose a path to misery” when they prioritize careers over having children and claimed men in America were “suppressed” in their masculinity.

There’s also a theory that Vance, as a closeted gay man raised by an addict mother, harbors resentment toward women and relishes having control over them. If Vance had a more traditional upbringing with a healthy maternal relationship, would he be less likely to champion stripping women of reproductive rights (regardless of his wolf in sheep’s clothing debate appearance)?

His treatment of women is different than Trump’s grabby, condescending words—compiled recently in a list of 81 horrible comments. Trump rarely speaks of his immigrant mother; it’s mostly a mystery how his relationship with her impacted the misogyny that led to the 26 sexual misconduct allegations against him by women—he continues to lash out publicly against women who’ve accused him of sexual assault even after losing in defamation lawsuits.

It’s a reflection of very weak men who’re intimidated by strong women or women in general. Why do women threaten their masculinity; why is it so fragile to begin with? A strong, confident man doesn’t have a need to feel threatened by a woman or by anyone if they’re secure in their “manhood”; they don't need to constantly remind anyone of it—in the political landscape or elsewhere in the real world.

As a relatively outspoken woman, I gave birth in office as a young elected official, have worked as a freelance journalist for 30 years, and certainly have experienced my share of misogynistic men. I recognize it when I encounter men who wish to feel superior and it can be difficult to hide my amusement in the dynamic. I don’t feel sorry for these individuals with their overblown mommy issues; I feel mildly sorry for the women who have to deal with them, even though they chose that life, it's still sad.

Navigating sexism is something women do often, for some, every day—in the workplace, our families, online. There’s a commenter on this website who’s taken it upon himself to leave disparaging, insulting comments on my posts (even while insisting he’s not doing it). I was recently verbally attacked by a Trumper in the sea glass community by who decided to assert his “masculinity” and imagined superiority over me. These things will happen to us as women and then it becomes an issue of how we will react. How much time are we willing to give the neanderthal, “crowd size issue” complex men who can’t stand the thought of a woman who’s strong, independent, and not putting a plate of hot food in front of them at the time? In KAOS, the queen of the gods Hera, after a supreme amount of mistreatment, lets Zeus know exactly how things are going to go when she’s had enough of his bullshit and walks her goddess ass out the door.

Discussion
  • Why don't you just correct the error that I brought to your attention, which enraged you? That's what a pro would do.

    Responses to this comment
  • I've been a professional journalist for 350 years (correction: 35), and I think an author's acknowledgement of an error in an article, posted in a comment clearly visible next to that article and moreover labeled "staff," counts as a correction.

    Responses to this comment
  • And you, as a professional journalist, find this style of correction, which included calling me a misogynist and a Trump supporter (which I'm not), simply because I pointed out the error, is appropriate? Okay, thanks for weighing in.

    Responses to this comment
  • The so-called correction also included calling a man who'd, like you're trying to do, come to the author's defense, a misogynist. It doesn't take a 35-year journalism career to see that this was not a proper correction. But if I'm wrong, please provide us with an example of a correction done in this manner that you approve of.

    Responses to this comment
  • Interesting, KenSil, that you now claim that this writer is a staff member as part of your argument. You wrote the following, recently, in the comments section: "I learned just today that Mary stopped being an editor at Splice Today about a year ago, which is a new record for me in not knowing what’s going on." Perhaps you know what's going on now, but don't want to be honest about it to me?

    Responses to this comment
  • Mary's status is similar to that of a professor emeritus, or Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who retained active 5 star status in retirement and continued to read the classified cable traffic.

    Responses to this comment
  • That's a good one! But that's not how it works in journalism. I'd have thought that after 35 years in the profession, you'd know that. In other words, you got busted in a lie, and now you're spinning a yarn.

    Responses to this comment
  • I can hardly have lied in stating that Mary's posts have been marked "Staff" as they visibly are. To understand why, I believe analogies are useful, such as that Lee Kuan Yew retained the title of "minister mentor" after stepping down as Singapore's prime minister.

    Responses to this comment
  • Moreover, it is entirely false that supernumerary emeritus-type positions do not exist in journalism. They carry titles such as editor-at-large, as Norman Podhoretz held at Commentary, and vice president at large, as Ben Bradlee held at the Washington Post.

    Responses to this comment
  • You're a tricky one, aren't you? Bringing Lee Kuan Yew into this tells me all I need to know about you. You're a BS artist. Why do you want to be involved in this so badly that you're willing to embarrass yourself. You have a white knight complex?

    Responses to this comment
  • Or maybe you're a misogynist who thinks women can't defend themselves so they need a strong man like you?

    Responses to this comment
  • Ken thank you for the neutral, non-inflammatory and non-troll comments like the negative, condescending ones I have unfortunately been receiving of late. For hundreds of years in journalism newspapers were printed without online versions and there were no corrections to the original editions. As mentioned above, I've already indicated apologies for both the errors in the original misstatement of the use of the word "conviction" versus "found liable" (I regret not also clarifying in my piece the additional distinction that the judge also found Trump to have raped E. Jean Carroll) and my unfortunate misunderstanding of the woodcutter comment. Since there seems to be quite the preoccupation with my position alongside the myriad continued condescending (ironically denied) comments about my position, I can clarify for the record. I have been a writer for Splice Today since 2012; soon thereafter I became Senior Editor. After this year I am retiring as Senior Editor but continuing as a writer. My "staff" badge will also retire at my request to clear up any confusion due to the hostility I've unfortunately been experiencing in this comments section and on behalf of clarity. Hopefully this will help untwist the undergarments of those spending what appears to be far too much time on such concerns. In the future, if a reader doesn't prefer my writing, I might suggest something simple along the lines of not reading it.

    Responses to this comment
  • KenSil is neutral? I'm beginning to wonder if you ever get real. Ken is your advocate, but you have to deny even the most obvious. Who do you think you are fooling?

    Responses to this comment
  • KenSil is willing to compromise himself here to defend you. At least give him his due.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'll address all of your points, as you clearly want this to continue, for whatever reason. There are a number of interesting aspects to this comments section brouhaha, including the fact that you feel free to insult me by calling me a misogynist, with no evidence, yet you make yourself out to be the victim because you're a woman. Cry me a river. I don't respect people who resort to such cheap tactics as a diversion once their mistakes are pointed out. It's certainly an odd stance for a staff member to take, if you are indeed a staff member. If I'm a misogynist, then please quote my misogynistic statements. That's the least you can do if you're a staff member, or any kind of respectable journalist. Fascinating that your spokesman, KenSil, who is very much concerned with his "facts" (e.g. Singapore dictator Lee Kuan Yew’s pivotal role in this discussion) claims that he “learned just today” you've not been an editor at ST for a year, yet you dispute this. So maybe Ken can tell us who told him this. He doesn't have to name any names if that's a problem for him, but to maintain his integrity as a journalist of 35 years he has to say something. After Ken claimed you’d left Splice Today as an “editor,” he then changed course after I challenged him and then said, comparing you to General MacArthur, that you have an “emeritus” position at ST along the lines of what Norman Podhoretz (Commentary) and Ben Bradlee (Washington Post) once had. Something funny is going on here. On another topic, the fact that for "hundreds of years" newspapers didn't run corrections has no bearing on how they do things today, not to mention that this is not a newspaper. Today, either a correction is run, or the mistake is just fixed without any announcement. You made your “correction” while calling me a misogynist, which is unprofessional. Just correct your error without making things up about me if you want it to mean something. Also, you mention in your response to me that the judge said Trump "raped" his victim, which is irrelevant because I never said she wasn't raped. I said only that Trump, who you've falsely claimed I like as a deflection, wasn't “convicted” of rape. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, but that is what all this silliness is about. I bruised your fragile ego. Anyway, moving on to your article right here about JD Vance (disclaimer: I do not like him either), you write that there's a “theory” that he's a closeted gay man raised by an addict mother (his grandmother raised him) without adding that it's a crackpot theory believed by nobody based on his writing in Hillbilly Elegy that when he was an impressionable, prepubescent boy (8 years old I believe) he got scared because some wacky preacher said gay men prefer to be around men, not women. Vance’s friends were only boys then (not men), a normal thing, but he interpreted it, in his childish mind, to mean he was gay and was scared he was going to hell. Drawing on your childhood, can you relate to his confusion in any way? I know I can. Who knows if this story is even true, but using it to suggest he's a closeted gay man is tabloid journalism, which is your style. So you see, I can't stop reading you because you need my free fact checking when you get outside your area of comfort, which is yourself.

    Responses to this comment
  • I believed Mary had already stepped down as an editor based on a tweet by Todd Seavey that was either incorrect or misunderstood by me. (X's search tool isn't good enough for me to readily find the thread.) I don't plan to discuss this topic any further.

    Responses to this comment
  • You probably should've sat this one out, Ken.

    Responses to this comment
  • KenSil - I can understand why you want out of this, in light of your performance, but there's another matter in which your journalistic credentials come into question that you've yet to clear up. You stated that MM had an "emeritus position" with ST, which she disputes as unfactual, claiming that she's "Senior Editor." That's hardly an emeritus position like Ben Bradlee once had, or like Lew Kuan Yew had. What is your response to MM's denial of your claim? Did Todd Seavey's alleged tweet (you say you can't find it, even though you could check his timeline and produce it if it were there) suggest such a thing? If not, which seems unlikely, how did you reach this conclusion? You have another source, or maybe just making stuff up?

    Responses to this comment
  • No, I'm delighted to clarify this. Here's Todd's tweet: https://x.com/ToddSeavey/status/1827046514075824625 >> It was brave of me to be edited by someone as hateful as @MaryMac when she was at Splice (I hope she can't still access the back end of the site, Russ). We differed on style issues like whether the phrase "commit suicide" is OK, but as a libertarian I wouldn't deny her the right. << I concluded from this, and Mary's later appearance in comments with the "staff" badge that she was no longer formally on staff (I don't know why I thought for "about a year") but still retained some degree of insider status, which I characterized as "emeritus" and likened to MacArthur et al because that struck me as a funny way of making the point. Of course, her still being on staff underscores my original point that her comment acknowledging an error served as a correction, which would be true even if it weren't marked staff. But a reader seeing that badge would have all the more reason to see her correction and recognize it as by the author and having some imprimatur of the site.

    Responses to this comment
  • You wrongly "interpreted" is as "emeritus" and then felt free to speak for her, as if she couldn't do it herself. I wonder if you recognize the irony of doing that in the comments section of an article she wrote about being a powerful woman who doesn't need men speaking for her. You sound like one of those misogynists she writes about that have "overblown mommy issues." Once again, you state, even after proving you're unreliable in this thread, that the correction was proper, which is not true. But of course you can't give me even one example, because they don't exist. Corrections are done straight, without ad hominems against the person who pointed out the error. You must have missed this in your 35-year career. Finally, thank you for revealing that Mr. Seavey considered MM to be a "hateful" person. That aligns with what I've seen of her in the comments section. When a writer considers his editor to be hateful, that really says something. She even expressed her disdain for Seavey in an article she wrote for ST, which is not kosher behavior for an editor.

    Responses to this comment
  • "Mary’s status is similar to that of a professor emeritus" is what I wrote, not that she is an emeritus, which of course would be "emerita." I didn't anticipate that this comparison, or the references to figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, would result in angry demands that I document Mary's "emeritus" position, and denials that she's similar to the historical figures I mentioned. As for your demand I produce an example of an insulting correction, I refer you here: https://x.com/juliareinstein/status/1042048426454736897

    Responses to this comment
  • Good to know you support the use of gendered titles like "emeritus" and "emerita" that impart gender into a professional title, even when the job itself is not based on gender. I suppose you, in your pin-headed way, also insist that a female actor be referred to as an "actress." The only reason I make such "demands" is that you portray yourself here as such a factual person, but it turns out you're not. Once again you've embarrassed yourself in providing that Buzzfeed link. If you actually believe that's any kind of correction your 35-year journalism career has been a total waste. "A previous version of this story referred to Toad as "mushroom-hatted." The mushroom is actually his head. We deeply regret the error." Wow, you really don't detect the sarcasm and lack of sincerity in this pseudo correction of something that appeared in an article about Trump's penis? Like I said, Ken, you should've sat this one out.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment