President Obama has staked his election hopes on women – single women in particular – and has been bashing men relentlessly in the process. It seems he and the democrats think their advantage with single women can negate his weak showing with men, both married and single. What this strategy hinges on, as far as I can tell, is also getting enough of the married female vote to carry him through. So the Democrats have begun a full-court press with feminism, hoping that they have enough support among women in general to help him prevail.
It could go either way. I suspect there’s some diminishing return already creeping in. 2008 was probably the money year for feminism, but even then Hillary Clinton couldn’t pull off a win, because men and minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama in primaries. Actually, I’m fairly certain that if he were a white man, Obama would lose this election handily, but he has such rock-solid support from minorities that he can afford some leeway, and it looks as though his team thinks he can afford to drop the white male vote due to minority support.
There’s been some outrage in the androsphere lately regarding his recent op-ed on Title IX, which celebrates the decline of men in college enrollment. Although I don’t personally see that as such a tragedy (I think too many people are in college as it is), his support for using Title IX to manipulate enrollment in STEM programs is a pretty clear threat to a number of young men and parents, as that’s often the only hope they have for getting sons into college and giving them a shot at a decent career. If implemented, it will have a real, detrimental effect on hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of young men in the US. In all likelihood, it will also disproportionately affect Asians as well, as they are overrepresented in STEM.
Here’s the part of the op-ed that ought to give us pause:
Today, thanks in no small part to the confidence and determination they developed through competitive sports and the work ethic they learned with their teammates, girls who play sports are more likely to excel in school. In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men. This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.
What he’s doing here is sadly common in the United States today. Corporate CEOs and politicians alike have rejected any sense of long-term responsibility and are willing to wreck a good thing for short-term gain. When politicians do it, we can fairly call it “pandering,” which is sort of an overused word, but appropriate in this circumstance.
Here’s the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Definition of pander
[no object] (pander to)
gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.):
newspapers are pandering to people’s baser instincts
archaic a person who assists the baser urges or evil designs of others:
the lowest panders of a venal press
late Middle English (as a noun): from Pandare, the name of a character in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (see Pandarus). The verb dates from the early 17th century
What’s immoral about feminists’ desire to handicap men in STEM? It’s pretty clear: we’ll all pay for it in lower standards and productivity, and there’s nothing “fair” about giving women an advantage in the one remaining field they do not dominate.
It’s all about supremacy, and Obama is pandering to female supremacist tendencies — just for a few more years in office. When his presidency is over and he’s touring the world giving lectures, the rest of us will be paying the price for the policies he put in place.