Why Women Are So Susceptible To Political Correctness

The following is an excerpt from the author’s new book, “The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Terror of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer.” (Bombardier Books, Post Hill Press.)

Feminists have long urged women to promote the politically correct viewpoint that they are oppressed victims. Champions of second-wave feminism — such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem — emphasized valid grievances of women, such as feeling like a sex object or being passed over for career advancement. However, the media-tech complex has gone well beyond promoting any constructive awareness of these concerns. Instead, it cultivates the resentments such women have felt for past humiliations.

Two cases in point are the confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. In both, the Democrats’ playbook to derail the confirmation process was exactly the same. At the eleventh hour, a woman appears with stories of sexual harassment from decades past. There is virtually no corroboration.

Kavanaugh was a teenager when his accuser Christine Blasey Ford said he tried to take her clothes off at a party, though none present at said party could corroborate anything. Anita Hill accused Thomas of making some off-color comments while she worked in his office. Again, uncorroborated.

But Democrats trying to disrupt the confirmations were not concerned about the flimsiness of the charges. The stories — hyped big in the media — served a far greater purpose. The unspoken goal was to emotionally manipulate American women who may have been humiliated in the past. They stirred up old resentments and traumas and then projected responsibility for those traumas onto the nominees. And it worked. It dredged up old memories of mistreatment among many women across America. They then became emotionally certain that the nominees were guilty.

Hence, the nominees could be framed in the public eye as “Me Too” perps, members of Wifebeaters Inc., and so on. The Senate Judiciary Committee and halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh hearings became a circus of angst-filled women, just as planned. They screamed in the hearing room. They screamed at swing-vote senators in hallways and elevators. On Capitol Hill, there were parades of women posing in “handmaid” costumes. The slogan of the day was “Believe all women!” no matter who they are or what they say about you.

Which leads to another question: What is a woman anyway? When Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define the word “woman,” she refused to do so and even added: “I’m not a biologist.” Given the propaganda of gender ideology — which seems to deny that males and females exist in biology or reality — why did its recent propaganda continue to speak out of both sides of the mouth as though two sexes really do exist? More specifically, why do traditional feminists like Steinem and company accept that narrative while deploring their erstwhile sisters known as radical feminists who object to it?

And since any man can claim to be a woman

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases