Ep 177 - Why Don’t We Ever Hear About “Toxic Femininity”?
Today on the show, we are always told that men are the bullies and harassers, but this black and white picture excludes all of the many women who are guilty of those things. Also, the Left is upset that there aren’t enough black coaches in the NFL. We’ll talk about why this kind of racial bean counting is absurd. Remember to subscribe on iTunes for the whole show. Date: 01-16-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we hear so much about toxic masculinity, but what about toxic femininity?
Why don't we ever hear that phrase used?
Also, we're told that the NFL has a scandal on its hands because it doesn't have enough minority head coaches at the moment.
And I want to discuss why it's insane to introduce racial quotas into sports, of all things.
We'll discuss that today on The Matt Wall Show.
Something really strange happened.
You see, today I was walking down the street and I happened across some kids bullying another kid.
And so naturally I stopped and I started cheering.
And, uh, and I was going, yeah, bully that kid.
Bullying is awesome.
Go bullying, go bullying.
Boys will be boys.
Um, and then some other men also joined me and we were all just go, we were all going, look at this bullying.
This is some great bullying.
I've seen some good bullying in my day.
This is maybe the best bullying I've ever seen.
We were all having that conversation, but, but just then, just then someone came up and they showed me that Gillette ad.
And I realized that, um, that actually bullying is wrong.
And my whole life has been changed from them.
In fact, I, I had, um, I had it on my schedule to, to go after cheering on the bullying.
I had it written down on my schedule.
I was going to go stand on a street corner and yell cat calls at women.
But I swear I, after seeing this video, I went and I crossed cat calls off my schedule, just crossed it right off.
And then I penciled in ask women permission to compliment them.
And so that's what I did.
And nobody gave me permission to compliment them.
So now I have all these compliments stored up and I've got, and I've got, so then I just went to a tree and I started complimenting the tree because I just, I had to compliment someone.
Um, and this is, this is what it means to be a real man.
Okay.
Anyway, but seriously, folks, seriously, um, I did want to kind of follow up on that, on the conversation about the Gillette ad.
We talked about it yesterday.
I'm not going to rehash all my points.
I wanted to really revisit one specific point and expand on something that I mentioned yesterday, which is, as we're talking about toxic masculinity, what about toxic femininity?
Okay, we hear so much about toxic masculinity.
Well, we don't hear about toxic femininity.
And why is that?
Now, as I said, that's not a phrase that I would really ever use because femininity I know is not toxic.
In fact, what is often toxic is when women reject their femininity, reject their womanhood, just as the toxic thing is when men reject their masculinity and reject their manhood.
So femininity can no more be toxic than can masculinity be toxic.
But in the interest of fairness, in the interest of equality, It seems to me that toxic femininity should be a term in usage.
It should be a term, in fact, that feminists insist upon because they want everything to be equal.
And toxic masculinity is a term.
Now, I made this point yesterday and some people said, well, no, see, that doesn't make sense.
We can't talk about toxic femininity because women don't do all of the kinds of harmful things that men do.
And so women don't have, I even heard, I heard many times the fact, worse the effect of women don't have the capacity really to hurt people and to harm society and others the way that men do.
Is that really the case, though?
Well, let's think about this for a moment, shall we?
According to Gillette and to feminists generally, toxic masculinity is when men are bullies,
when they harass, assault, when they are pushy and presumptuous, not allowing women to speak,
and then of course when they rape or when they condone rape.
Now, I admit that as far as rape goes, that is more common,
certainly more common among men than it is among women. Men, however, are more likely to be bullies,
and that's because they're not Men are certainly more often the culprits in rape cases.
Though women do commit sexual assaults and it's not, it's not like they, they, they never do it or it's so statistically rare that it hardly even counts.
That's not the case at all.
Um, especially these days, all you have to do is look at public schools, public school teachers, often females are assaulting their students all the time, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases in recent years of, um, of school children being sexually assaulted by their teachers.
And very often.
Those teachers are female.
So this sort of thing does happen.
But still, most cases are men.
Fine, that's true.
But women have other ways of causing damage.
Women have other ways of hurting people, especially when we're talking about bullying.
And that was probably the most absurd thing about the Gillette ad.
And it's just the most absurd thing in general.
When we're talking about bullying and toxic masculinity and all, we're lumping all these things together.
This, this, this kind of like painting of bullying as a uniquely male caused problem.
Which is absolutely ludicrous.
Girls and women bully people all the time, and often female bullying takes a much more insidious, much more harmful form.
Just look at how girls in school treat other girls.
Listen, when you hear about these terrible cases of girls killing themselves, Because of bullying.
And you hear about these cases all the time.
It's a terrible thing.
But it's not usually boys who were doing the bullying in those cases.
It was girls.
And when you hear about girls who have eating disorders or who, you know, engage in self-mutilation or other kinds of self-harm, again, when you look at the treatment that they are suffering in school and what leads to these issues, It is almost always a girl on girl problem.
Now, you know, boys can be bullies too.
But usually when a boy is going to bully you, especially if he's bullying another boy, he'll insult you.
He'll call you names, usually to your face.
Or he might say it behind your back, too, but he'll also say it to your face.
And he might push you, shove you, punch you, right?
I mean, this is the kind of thing we're talking about.
It's pretty straightforward, is the point.
But what girls will do to each other is much deeper.
Much more damaging than that, I would say.
Much more calculated.
They'll gossip.
They'll spread rumors.
I mean, they're really going to seek to destroy the life of their victim.
Just talk to some women sometime who went through this in school.
There are plenty of women who their school careers were ruined because of other girls and what other girls said about them, the rumors and lies and all that kind of stuff.
A punch in the face hurts for a few minutes, but a destroyed reputation can ruin Your life.
Now, it seems odd to me that somehow we miss this, right?
Somehow when we're talking about the challenges that women and girls face, we never point out that women and girls are the primary bullies and tormentors of women and girls.
Somehow we just leave that out of the discussion.
And by the way, women can bully men also.
And girls can bully boys.
That does happen.
Not physically, most of the time, but it does happen in other ways, emotional and psychological ways.
A girl who is higher on the social ladder than a boy definitely has the ability to ridicule, mock, embarrass him, hurt him in many ways.
There are plenty of boys who dread going to school, in part at least because of how they're treated by girls in the school.
And it's harder for them too, in a way, because they can't really complain about it, because nobody will take the complaint seriously, and they can't really do anything about it.
You know, when you're a boy and you're being treated viciously by a bunch of girls in school or something, you know, there's not a lot you can really do.
If you start shouting at them and screaming at them, then you're going to look like the insane person.
You're going to seem like the bad guy.
Right.
Um, and you know, if it was, if you're a boy and there's another boy in the school treating you that way, then for some boys, the way you might handle it is go up and punch him in the face.
Right.
But, um, you're not going to do that with a girl.
So you just, most of the time endure it.
And this stuff happens.
I mean, it happens all the time.
We don't talk about it for some reason, but it does happen.
Let's take something else into consideration.
Men do have certain advantages over women, certain things that they can use to harm women.
And bad men will use those things.
And the main thing we're talking about here is physical strength.
Now this is brought up all the time.
We're talking about toxic masculinity and so on and so forth.
Well, men have this physical brute strength, which they can lord over women and use against them.
And that's true.
It does happen.
It's terrible.
But women have their own advantages.
Mainly they have their sexuality and they have their appearance and they have the desires of men, which they can manipulate and coerce and they can use to sometimes destroy people.
And this happens all the time.
That was one of the things that was kind of lost in the whole Me Too hysteria.
Because in some of the cases we heard about, it was pretty straightforward.
The guy was being a pig, being a jerk, being a predator.
Victimizing women, you know, um, or victimizing young boys in the case of, uh, Kevin Spacey.
So there were, there were some cases like that, but there were also plenty of cases, um, where you looked at it and it was pretty apparent that the women were also culpable in that they were using their sexuality to obtain career advancements.
Not just that either, but if a man approaches a woman, tries to talk to her, tries to initiate something and he does it respectfully.
Well, the woman, if she's a jerk, if she's a pig, if she's a bad person, she has the ability in that moment, now that the man has made himself vulnerable to her, she has the ability to completely embarrass and humiliate him.
And there are some women who will do that.
That they will take that vulnerability and they'll just crush you with it.
Right?
And this is the kind of thing that single men have to deal with.
Um, which is one of the many reasons why I'm very happy that I'm not single, but there's something single men, this is one of the things single men worry about.
You know, they worry about if you're, if you're, you know, if they sit back and they never initiate, they never go try to talk to a woman.
Well, then they're just going to be single for the rest of their lives and they're going to die alone.
So they know that because even with all of the changes in society and everything, it's still expected that the man is going to initiate and women expect it.
Even if they complain when some guy they don't like initiates, they still expect the initiation to happen on the part of men.
Men know that, but they also know that if they try to initiate, they try to strike up a conversation, they try to get something going, again, respectfully, you know, consensually, they know they just made themselves vulnerable.
And if the woman wants to, if she's a bad person, she could destroy you.
Maybe not destroy you permanently, but she could crush you in that moment and embarrass you.
Or, as we've seen other cases, she could actually destroy you if she decides to make up a lie, make up a rape claim.
These things also happen.
The point here is that all of these issues, bullying, harassing, abusing, all these issues, they are much bigger, much more complex than how they're painted.
And when we are determined to make men the bad guys and women, the good guys, and to, and to kind of position the issue in that black and white way.
And then when we never talk about the reverse scenarios, where the woman's the bad guy, then a lot of victims, including female victims are ignored.
Because their bully, their harasser, their predator, their abuser was a female.
And that doesn't count, apparently, because nobody wants to talk about that.
Nobody wants to talk about the times when women act terribly.
Just look, talk to a teacher sometime.
Talk to like a middle school teacher or high school teacher.
And they'll tell you about the just evil behavior on the part of some, not all of course, but some girls are just evil to each other in a way that far surpasses what guys will do.
This is not...
I know anytime you try to bring this up, someone's gonna say, well, that's whataboutism.
That's whataboutism.
No, you can't do whatabout.
We're talking about men right now.
So for you to try to bring up women, that's you're deflecting, you're obfuscating, you're trying to avoid.
Well, the whataboutism claim, the whataboutism accusation is about the laziest way to handle an argument these days.
Because here's the problem.
It's really easy to say, well, you know, no, no, no, we're not talking about women.
We're talking about men right now.
Okay.
So you can't change the subject.
Yeah, but we're always talking about men.
That's the point.
We only ever talk about the things that, the bad things that men do.
There is never a time when everyone's going to agree to, okay, you know what?
Let's, let's talk about, let's move the conversation forward.
Let's focus on women for a minute.
That will never happen.
It never does happen.
The conversation when it comes to bullying, harassing, abusing, all of that, it is always 100% of the time about men.
So if we're ever going to bring women into this conversation too, and look at the whole picture, and look at every facet of the problem, then somebody's going to have to go, well, what about?
And so, yes, I am doing a What About?
Because, you know what?
I think we've covered men at this point.
Like, we get it.
We've covered it.
We know.
We understand.
It's been established.
It totally is 100% established.
Everybody knows now.
There are bad, terrible men out there who do bad, terrible things.
We get it.
We know.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay.
Can we talk about this over here now?
All right.
I want to mention another thing.
I wanted to talk about this because it's a great example of how identity politics leads to insanity.
So there's been a lot of bellyaching recently because in the NFL, there have been several head coaching vacancies over this during the offseason, which has only been for a few weeks.
And those opportunities so far has been, I don't know, I think it's been seven or eight, seven or eight head coaching vacancies so far in the last few weeks.
And in all but one of the cases, I believe the opportunities have gone to white coaches.
And this is a source of constant outrage, um, the perceived lack of black head coaches.
And it's one of the reasons why, or the reason why the NFL came up with the Rooney rule.
And the Rooney rule requires that teams have to interview black candidates for coaching jobs, no matter what, even if a team knows who it wants for its coach, which is the case plenty of times, you know, um, Where they've already made their decision.
There's someone out there who they know they want because he fits with the scheme.
He fits with what the team is doing and the program and everything else.
But even in those cases, says the Rooney rule, you got to bring in a black coach and interview him anyway, just for show, even though there's no chance he's going to get the job.
Which of course is insulting to the black coach and it's just generally stupid and demeaning and pointless.
And that's when you try to institute identity politics and make it into a policy, you're always going to end up with generally stupid and demeaning and pointless and insulting things.
But now that a bunch of teams have had the audacity in the last few weeks to hire the person that they think is best for the job rather than the person who fills a certain racial quota, the left is really upset.
And now they're saying that the Rooney rule isn't enough.
And now there need to be more procedures put in place to make sure that a certain arbitrary percentage of head coaching vacancies go to black men or, or not just black.
I mean, I'm sure they'd love it if a black woman or any sort of woman were ever to become an NFL head coach.
Um, let me read it just as an example of this outrage.
Let me read an article from, um, Yahoo sports written by a guy by the name of Therese paler.
Read a little bit of it.
It says, Eric Bienamy stood and smiled in front of the Kansas City Chiefs press corps last Wednesday.
He spoke deliberately and passionately, with pauses in between, as if he were a well-spoken professor or a preacher.
Days earlier, no fewer than five NFL teams expressed interest in interviewing the Chiefs offensive coordinator for a head coaching job.
He took many of those interviews, and given his upbeat weekly news conference, it seemed like he landed one of the three remaining jobs on the market.
Alas, one day later, the New York Jets hired former Miami head coach Adam Gase to be their new leader.
And one day after that, news trickled out that the Cincinnati Bengals were leaning toward hiring Los Angeles Rams quarterback coach Zach Taylor, while the Miami Dolphins were hiring someone else.
Assuming the Taylor and Flores hires will become official when their team seasons end, it will bring an end to another head coaching cycle that was surprisingly rough for Biennium and other top minority coaches.
Of the eight new head coaches hired by NFL teams over the past two weeks, only Flores, a Brooklyn-born son of Honduran immigrants, is a man of color.
Flores, and then under the header it says, a statistical step back.
And it says, Flores will join Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Ron Rivera of the Carolina Panthers, and Anthony Lynn of the Los Angeles Chargers as the only minority head coaches in the league to start the 2019 season.
That's half the high-water mark of eight that was in place at the start of the 2018 season.
On the surface, this is a step back, one that isn't a great look for the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell, who has made it a goal to increase front office and coaching staff diversity.
In a league of players that is approximately 70% black.
Um, and then it goes on with, uh, uh, so on and so forth.
Um, this is just, this is just so cynical and, and insane and racist.
Honestly, a statistical step back.
What does that even mean?
Based on what?
What is the statistic we're aiming for and who decided that statistic?
It's completely arbitrary, as it always is with these affirmative action type things.
It's just totally arbitrary.
We just decided that, you know what, there should be a certain amount of people with this ethnic background in this job.
Why?
Because, just because.
And if that means that there are perfectly qualified people who don't get a job, well, then fine, because the statistics are what we must all bow before the statistics.
I mean, think about it.
You've got, you know, six or seven white guys that were hired to coach team, very qualified.
Some of these guys, you know, they're hired for a reason, very good at what they do.
And so that's why they were hired.
And then, so now this Perez or Therese Paler, he comes along and says, well, that's a statistical step back.
How would you like it if, you know, you get a job that you've earned and you've been working towards, and then someone comes along and calls it a statistical step back.
And when you complain that there should be more black head coaches, what you're saying is that there's a white head coach, or maybe a few of them in the league right now, who shouldn't have a job.
That's what you're saying.
And so which one is that?
Point them out for me.
Which of the head coaches, I would challenge the person who wrote this article, whoever else supports this Rooney Rule stuff, which of the white head coaches would you fire just so that you could replace them with someone with darker skin?
And are you going to go explain that to his family, by the way?
Go sit down with his wife and his kids and say, hey, listen, he's been working for this.
He fits the job.
He's doing a good job.
But he's going to have to go, because we've got statistics that we need to take into consideration here.
And this is why this really jumps out at me.
And the writer of this article, he even points this out.
But he points it out as if it underlines his own point, but really it undermines his point.
And that is that there are a great many minorities in the NFL, a great many minorities who are paid very, very well to do their job.
And if we're looking at statistics and you were to compare You know, percentage-wise, how many black people are in America, percentage-wise, versus how they're represented in the NFL, you would say, statistically, they're way, way, way over-represented in the NFL.
I mean, if we're doing this random, arbitrary thing with head coaches, where we're looking at the racial disparity, and we're saying, oh, there's too many white people, well, why don't we do the reverse with cornerbacks?
Why don't we do the reverse with running backs?
Or linebackers?
Um, or, or wide receivers or free safeties.
In all of those cases, you're going to find that almost all of them are black people who again are in very visible positions being paid very well, very handsomely for doing their job.
And why are they in those positions?
Why are they being paid so well?
Because they're extremely good at what they do.
So I'm not going to complain.
No, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't say, oh no, we need to get some more white people into wide receiver positions.
I mean, there are a few white wide receivers in a league.
Only a few.
Including one very good one.
But I'm not going to say, oh no, we need to get more, because why?
Right now, if you're a wide receiver, if you're on a team, if you're on a roster as a wide receiver in the NFL, it's because you're just really good.
It's because you're one of the best at doing that in the entire world.
You're one of the best athletes in the world, and that's how you got on that roster.
And it does not matter what your race is.
And if we look and we say, well, uh, you know, it looks like 95% of wide receivers are, are black.
Well, it's just because they happen to be the ones that are the best.
That's why they have the job.
Good for them.
Great.
Nothing to be upset about, but it just seemed, it seems so especially absurd to start playing this identity politics game with the NFL of all, or, or the NBA of all things.
Because those are examples of extremely talented, gifted, often minority people who are doing a job and getting paid a lot of money, a lot more money than you or I get paid.
And yet we're still finding a reason to complain because we say, Oh yeah, well, they're, they're really represented there in that position and in that position, that position, that position, that position, that position, that position.
Oh wait, but there's a position where they're not as well-represented.
So let's focus on that.
Why?
Who cares?
Why does it matter?
Now, listen, if you could find an example in modern times of a black coaching candidate who was deprived of a job because of his skin color, then I would agree, well, that's a problem.
I mean, that's racist.
If you could find an example, if you could present anything like evidence To support the idea that, um, for instance, the, the coaching candidate that was mentioned at the beginning of this article was denied those positions because the NFL owners were racist and didn't want a black guy taking up those positions.
Well, then you've got a case on, you know, then you've got a, then you can make a case, but that's not what's happening.
And in fact, what you're doing is you're demanding exactly that sort of thing, but in the reverse.
You're demanding that there be white people who are deprived of a position because of the color of their skin, which is obviously, clearly racist.
And the thing that just annoys me, it annoys me in general with this kind of stuff.
It annoys me even more.
When you start injecting it into sports, because one of the great things about sports, the reason why I like sports, the reason why even increasingly I really enjoy just sitting down and watching a game of some kind, is because usually that's where all this identity politics and all that stuff, usually, hopefully, until recently anyway, all that stuff goes to the side.
Because on the field or on the court, it's really just about whoever's best wins.
It's just like mano-a-mano, team versus team.
And if you're the best at doing it, then you win.
And that's it.
There are no other considerations taken into account.
And that's what's great about it.
In a world where we're constantly measuring and judging and politicizing and, you know, quantifying things and coming up with quotas and everything.
It's great to be able to just sit down and watch like a football game.
And you know that, look, if this team has better athletes and they've got a better game plan, they're going to win.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what the racial makeup is.
None of that matters.
They're going to win.
But the left says, no, they cannot allow there to be any kind of oasis in our culture where their social engineering and their political agenda does not infect.
They can't allow it.
And so now they're gonna focus on sports too.
And that is a cryin' cryin' shame.
We will leave it there.
Thanks for watching and listening.
Godspeed.
Today we run train on the progressive agenda.
Then what should be done about Steve King?
We will analyze Democrat hypocrisy and the left is furious that Karen Pence is teaching at a Christian school.
