You see? The whole point of the “catcall” video was to provoke conflict over a phony “issue” that is not really an issue at all. That is to say, everybody is anti-catcall, except those men who are actually engaged in this boorish behavior, so why is there an “issue” here?Fortunately, because of the racial content of the men depicted in the catcall video, there has been some blowback against feminism. But that was only luck. We lose the culture wars and then elections, when we allow the left to frame the debate. Too often we win elections and the government still changes under our feet.
Objectively, catcalling presents no cause for political controversy. Ah, but it does give feminists a chance to (a) demonize men, and (b) discredit any male commentator who attempts to dispute feminism’s authority to define what catcalling means as an “issue.” This is really about who controls the narrative, see?
. . .
Feminists can “win” arguments only if they are permitted to control the terms of debate, to decide what the issues are, to limit the parameters of discussion, and to disqualify critics who refuse to cooperate with feminism’s Orwellian thought-control project.
Mark Steyn makes that point regarding gay marriage:
In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the chief justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage.Indeed, ballot measures to define marriage as between a man and a woman passed even in solidly Democrat California, but it made no difference.
What happened in between? Jurisprudentially, nothing: Everything Chief Justice Warren Burger said back in the ’80s — about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature,” “the legislative authority of the State” — still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture — from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts — moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat.
Because to say today what the chief justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office — not merely as Chief Justice but as CEO of a private company, or host of a cable home-remodeling show, or dog-catcher in Dead Moose Junction.
So what's to be done? The only way to fight back is to seize control of the narrative, to ridicule lampoon and shame the forces of cultural marxism, to call them out for the liars they are.
Rapes on campus? Sorry, you're a bunch of liars. And who said you get to regulate sex on campus? And if your stupid statistics are true, why did you send your daughter to college, do you hate her?
Lena Dunham the spokesperson for her generation? Sorry, don't accept lectures from pedophiles.
Gay marriage? I find it disgusting to hear about men sticking their dicks in other men and most of you do too. Isn't that what gay marriage is about?
R.S. McCain continues with this great advice:
“Turn the camera around,” as Andrew Breitbart used to say. Instead of them demanding answers from you — “Look at this awful misogyny! Why don’t you denounce this misogyny? Is it true that you secretly hate women?” — you start asking them questions:Indeed, because the whole point of the cultural marxism is to move the country to the left. Because in a country founded on principles of limited government and liberty, traditional values are the bulwark of maintaining that form of government. So the left seeks to destroy the values that preserve liberty, and this is why the culture ware is more important.
- Who appointed you as Grand Inquisitor?
- What is the basis of your authority to interrogate me about this? What difference does my opinion make?
- When did Americans elect you as Our Moral Superior?
- Where do you get the idea that I’m obliged to cooperate in this transparent political “gotcha” game you’re paying?
- Why is it necessary that I answer your questions?
- How much is the Democrat Party paying you to do this?
Sad to say, I am personally more comfortable with economics and policy, so I have left this topic alone for the most part. The culture is not my forte, so I will most likely stick to my expertise on this blog. But my growing understanding of the nature of framing the narrative by the left has dampened my enthusiasm for writing about the purely political.