Were any men considered or even eligible for the Post’s position? (I think we all know the answer to that question, don’t we?) Wouldn’t a more accurate description of this role be “female-only-perspective gender columnist”?
Has either woman ever provided a male perspective on “gender issues”? As a lifelong reader of the Post, I can’t say that I ever read a column by Hesse that did so. In fact, I offer her 2014 article about the International Conference on Men’s Issues, Men’s rights activists, gathering to discuss all the ways society has done them wrong, as a premier example of her—and the Post’s—gender bias. As documented here, her article was a “hatchet job” against the fair-minded men and women who are only trying to communicate the downside of the male gender role and to address the awful excesses of feminism.
While I’m sure that these two women are both fine people, it has to be asked: If women have, like African Americans, indeed been victims of real discrimination, then why haven’t the Post or the Times designated race columnists as well? Hasn’t racial discrimination always been a more significant problem than what has been called “sex discrimination”?
Let me be blunt: In American history, how many women have been lynched or otherwise been the victims, because of their gender, of what can only be described as a century-long campaign of terror? More recently, how many women have been, like George Floyd, the deliberate victims of a “21st-century lynching”—same death-by-asphyxiation, just without the noose and tree?
(To those who might reply that women have suffered from a centuries-long campaign of domestic violence terror perpetrated by male oppressors, the truth is that women perpetuate at least 50% of domestic violence. Just ask Johnny Depp. Or read the book When She Was Bad – Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence.)
Let me repeat the question: If the Post and Times have designated gender columnists, for God’s sake why don’t they also have race columnists?
It’s because they and other media organizations have made gender more important than race.
The fact is that feminists have provably misappropriated the term “discrimination” from the racial sense and have disingenuously applied it to the gender arena.
And the Post and the Times have glibly and stupidly facilitated this misappropriation, through decades of thoughtless use of the term and repetition in tens of thousands—or more likely hundreds of thousands—of articles, editorials, opinion pieces, videos, and entire TV shows, with a one-sided, feminist bias.
So how can this misappropriation of the term “discrimination” be proven?
By answering a single, simple question, “What occupation requires no education, no training, and no licensing, where you can literally make billions of dollars—yes, that’s a “B”, billions—that is filled exclusively by women, and that requires absolutely no skills at all?
Other than uttering the words “I do?”
The answer, of course, is “wife”.
For example, MacKenzie Bezos, former wife of Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, who in 2019 divorced Bezos, walked away with a 4% stake of Amazon worth nearly $40 billion! The divorce made her one of the 25 richest billionaires on earth.
Here are some other “discriminated-against” women who benefited solely from being female:
- Anna Murdoch-Mann, former wife of Rupert Murdoch, received $1.7 billion when she divorced the media mogul
- Robyn Denise Moore, former wife of Mel Gibson, received $400 million when she divorced the actor
- Juanita Jordan, former wife of Michael Jordon, received $168 million when she divorced the basketball player
This list wouldn’t be complete without mentioning Anna Nicole Smith, the gold-digging former Playboy magazine Playmate of the Year, who in 1994 at age 26 married 89-year-old Texas oil billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. Robbing the cradle? What about robbing the grave? Shouldn’t there be a law against women taking advantage of (likely) senile old men?
And all this for just saying those two little magic words, “I do!”
Can anyone at the Post name any African American who similarly benefited, who became rich, sometimes beyond-imagination rich, just by virtue of his or her race, in the same way that women generally benefit due to their gender?
Of course not! You see, real discrimination doesn’t have an upside, and the so-called “oppressors” don’t suffer from a significant downside.
And men sure suffer from a significant downside of being male that should embarrass the millions of men and women—feminist or not— who claim that “women are oppressed by men”. From divorce settlements, to who got into Titanic’s lifeboats, to who dies in the “death professions” (where men are ten times more likely than women to be killed), to who can be enslaved (a.k.a. “drafted”) to die or be maimed in the nation’s wars, and in scores or even hundreds of other ways, women benefit from the sacrifices of men.
Why is this important? Because the common, feminist-defined understanding of how women suffered from their gender role tells only half the story, and completely ignores how men have suffered from their gender role.
And for the past several decades, the world’s media, including the Post and the Times, have helped perpetuate this dishonest, feminist-driven, one-sided depiction of gender roles.
So, I pose this question to both the Washington Post and the New York Times:
“Will you either eliminate the position of “gender columnist” at your two fine newspapers, or hire race columnists to mirror the gender-based positions?”