An Ordinary Man

Or, Men 101

Month: February, 2017

Attention: Kennedy OR Clinton …

There has been some speculation that the scions of two powerful political families from the same party may be interested in the same Senate seat if it opens up in 2020.  What makes this interesting to me is that the seat would open because a woman, Kirsten Gillibrand, might make a run for the Presidency, leaving two other women, Chelsea Clinton and Caroline Kennedy, potentially interested.

But what worries me is that men like me – old white guys – will be put off by too much symbolism being read into this.  I want a government based upon actual common sense (versus DJT’s alternative-reality common sense); I want my politicians to tell me – a human being – how their candidacy is going to help me and my country.

The fact of the matter is that while #ShePersisted, #NastyWoman, and #PantsuitNation might be very exciting and make some people feel better, empowered, or whatever, I will be much more receptive to #CommonSense, #JusticeForAll, #ResponsibleSpending, #AffordableHealthCare, etc., and you still need my vote.  I will never vote for women’s rights, LGBT rights, or civil rights over my own interest in having a decent job and an affordable life but if I get those things, I will embrace them, because they are, simply put, a matter of common sense.

Isn’t it great “scion” no longer necessarily refers to a male?

Deadly Serious

A 76-year-old man has admitted shooting his 62-year-old wife because after 7 months of marriage, they had not consummated their union and she still refused to have sex with him.   This leaves me at a loss for words.  Was it justified?  Of course not.  Do I understand it?  Of course I do.  If you don’t, may I suggest reading my book?

 

They’re Insulting Who? Lady Gaga?

The New York Daily News – my favorite tabloid – ran an article today with the rather lengthy title of Lady Gaga Has a Message for Internet Trolls Who Body Shamed Her during Super Bowl Halftime Performance.

I have no objection to the article itself but I’ve grown tired of the term “body shaming” because that’s NOT what’s going on.  Let’s look at the definition of shame as it pops up on Google:

shameAs you can see, the definition is based upon a “consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.”  Boom, there you have it – not having the stomach of a supermodel is not wrong or foolish behavior.  She is in better shape than 80-90% of us, so there is no need for humiliation, mortification, chagrin, embarrassment, etc, because of this, so she cannot – and apparently was not – “shamed” (plus, I happen to find a bit of a belly endearing, especially given that I have a bit of one myself).

What people are doing is insulting Lady Gaga and that is simply rude.

Here’s how Richard Wilson, the namesake of An Ordinary Man views it:

Liz had stopped wearing two-piece suits long ago, rejecting Richard’s argument that the slight slackening of her belly after bearing Sean was unavoidable but also sort of sexy, and wore a tight maillot. It pushed her breasts up and the high cut to the leg extended her toned thighs while flattening the offending belly. She looked good. There were two other families at the pool and one of the husbands was not shy about enjoying proximity to a woman considerably more attractive than his own wife.

Normal men do not demand perfection, whatever the hell that would be.

The Future is Female

makers

I’m fairly comfortable with my knowledge of sexual politics, having been a student thereof for over forty years, but less so with my knowledge of political politics.  And then there is that this blog is supposed to be about the former, but there is an observation I’d like to make regarding Hillary Clinton’s “the future is female” remark, as reportedly made at the Makers Conference.

This is an important message, and one that I fully support, but we just lost a critical election, perhaps in part because of statements like these.  In the election of 1992, the tagline for the other Clinton was “it’s the economy, stupid,” and, unfortunately, it still was in 2016.  I mocked Donald Trump’s candidacy in a course in American Government I taught back in the earlier stages of his campaign, but as an under-employed older white male, as much as my brain shouted “fraud,” my heart listened to his pledge to create jobs because I needed one so very badly and it took a fair amount of strength to keep from voting “what-have-I-got-to-lose?” in the voting booth because of this.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was too much about empowering various groups that may – do – need to be empowered, but my concern is my bank account’s ability to put food on my table and pay the mortgage at the same time.  I’m not a feminist per se, nor a racist, and suspect a lot of the LGTB community does in their bedrooms exactly what I do in mine – nothing – so I wanted to hear about jobs, period.    In a proper economy, discrimination against anyone is rarely economical, so let’s get to that proper economy and not talk about whose lives matter, sartorial choices, or what colors I see in the sky after a rain.

If I was working, I would have a chance to hire the best person for the job, whatever that person’s nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc, was, but if I am not working, too much talk about their interests sounds suspiciously like being against mine.

Donald Trump won because he lied about jobs and the forgotten workers; Hillary Clinton could have won if she talked the truth about jobs and the forgotten workers.  Let’s not let that happen again.  The best argument for equality across the board is an economic one.