Strength

Complimentgate

Brendan O'Neill writes at the UK Spectator,

If you were in any doubt that we live in mean-spirited and vengeful times, then Complimentgate should put you straight. Complimentgate is the name I’m giving to the naming and shaming of a solicitor who had the temerity to say something nice about a woman’s looks. For doing this, for paying someone a compliment, he has now become an object of Twitter-ridicule, fodder for the insatiable global outrage industry, which rails not only against people who are abusive online but also against people who are nice. No one is safe from their virtual slings and arrows.

The man in question is Alexander Carter-Silk. Via LinkedIn, he sent what the press is bizarrely referring to as a ‘controversial message’ to one Charlotte Proudman, a barrister. His crime was to describe Ms Proudman’s profile pic as ‘stunning’, which was a bit too generous in my view – her fringe needs work and her pout is too severe. Ms Proudman, describing herself as a ‘fearless feminist’, informed Mr Carter-Silk that his message was ‘offensive and misogynistic’ and then splashed his wicked words on Twitter. Before long the Twitterati, sniffing an opportunity for outrage, were churning out 140 characters of fury about what a twisted, disgusting world we live in, whereby a man thinks he can say something nice about a woman and get away with it.


The 21st century’s knee-jerk finger-wagging (mixed metaphor, I know) is always depressing, even when aimed at people who are purposefully unpleasant. But here, a bloke has been slammed and shamed for being friendly. To describe his compliment as ‘misogyny’ confirms that the word has been utterly drained of meaning by the new tweeting-and-bleating feminist set. Misogyny is a deep hatred of women; saying something nice to a woman is the opposite of that. What must the veiled, subjugated women of genuinely patriarchal societies in the East and South think when they see a free, well-connected woman in the West scream ‘misogyny!’ over a compliment? They must feel pretty lonely, knowing they’re unlikely ever to win solidarity from such sorry, self-obsessed excuses for feminists.

As Ms Proudman said, schoolmarm-style, to Carter-Silk: ‘Think twice before sending another woman – half your age – such a sexist message.’ If he’s a misogynist, then surely she’s an ageist?

From those ‘slut-walkers’ who called for the criminalisation of wolf-whistling to the campaigners who demand the destruction of billboard ads that feature skinny women, many now arrogantly believe they can go about their daily lives without ever being offended, or simply engaged with. But you can’t. No man, or woman, is an island. And thank God for that. That is what makes life great: we encounter all kinds of people, saying all sorts of stuff, some nice, some dumb. Far better to have the occasional rough encounter – or receive an unexpected compliment! – than to live in the emotional deadzone and tyranny of social paralysis that the PC seem keen to cultivate.

Read more here.

Update: Chateau Heartiste Commenter "just passing through" writes,

Any man with the slightest knowledge of how attraction works in the female psyche, knows that this woman wasn’t really upset with this Man’s indication of interest in her, but because he weakly, hedged his bets by qualifying that interest with the precursor…”I know this isn’t PC but”. And in so doing, sub-communicated his fear. And a frightened Man, is da facto, weak. And there is nothing that turns women off of a man quicker than weakness. In fact, a frightened Man is to a woman, what a drowning person is to another drowning person… At best useless at worse dangerous.

So here’s a diamond bullet of wisdom, mark it well:

A WOMAN WILL FORGIVE A MAN ANYTHING ECCEPT WEAKNESS!

But just as “Male Weakness” is cryptonite to a woman’s attraction triggers, “Male Boldness” is pure cat nip. So be bold men. Be bold.

Oh, and never ever ever apologise. Ever! Women take apologies as just another sign of weakness. By all means apologise to your male friends but never to a woman. It won’t help. If you get cornered, do a Clinton…. ” mistakes have been made” speech. But don’t apologise. Ever!

Guiliani's plea

"Mr. President, wake up! Come off the golf course!" Here is the speech by Rudy Guiliani that has stirred so much controversy.

The terrorists are connected by two things: a common ideology, and funding by Iran. For the purpose of defending the slaughter and desecration of human beings. Iran looked into the weak eyes of President Jimmy Carter, then they released the hostages the minute Ronald Reagan put his hand on the Bible. "Now, once again, they are looking into the eyes of a weak president, begging for agreement with Iran at all costs." This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before!" Iran should not be allowed to have any form of nuclear power. Putin watched Obama and said I can take advantage of this man, because he is weak.

In part two Mr. Guiliani talks about 3,000 people (the MEK?) who are being held captive in Iraq by the Iraqis and Iranians. They layed down their arms and allowed the American military to defend them, as we granted them asylum status. I have not read about this situation, have you? Guiliani wants to bring them to America, or at least we should give them the arms to defend themselves. He says that if our president had any honor, that's what he would do. But Obama is so intent on making a deal with Iran, that he is leaving those people there as sitting ducks.

Guiliani pleads for us to stop Obama's "selling us out to Iran like Chamberlain did with Hitler."

Caving in to Islamist threats

David Foster reports:

The Dutch government has told its soldiers to refrain from wearing the uniform in their own country. The reason? A series of tweets from a single jihadist, who warns of forthcoming attacks against Dutch soldiers in revenge for Holland’s participation in the military operations against ISIS.

It should be obvious that this policy of caving in to a threat will lead directly to more and escalated threats in the future.

Read more here.

"If Obama can't lead, can he at least keep quiet about it?"

Victor Davis Hanson writes is a historian who knows a thing or two about military history. He writes that

China and Russia are no more impressed with empty bluster today than Japan was in 1941.

Hanson warns,

Unless the United States in any meaningful way backs up its current flamboyant “pivot” to Asia with additional ships, air wings, and manpower, there is no sense in chest-pounding our resolve to our increasingly orphaned allies, who may soon have to choose between acquiescing to China and going nuclear.

China will not be impressed that we talk confidently even as we cut defense — just as imperial Japan was not awed when aged American battleships were ordered westward to Pearl Harbor as a gesture.

Likewise, in the late 1940s, “containing Red China” meant nothing when the postwar U.S. had canceled new aircraft carriers, even as it still deployed on the cheap vulnerable small garrisons of troops all over Asia.

President Obama’s pivot has now joined his stable of deadlines, red lines, step-over lines, and “I don’t bluff” and “I’m not kidding” assertions. The problem with such rhetoric is not just that it is empty, but that it is predictably empty. If Obama cannot lead, can he at least keep quiet about it?

A Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran is not just unimpressed but encouraged, seeing such sermonizing as an assurance of nothing to follow. Obama’s threats are like a gambler’s involuntary tic, which astute poker players read always as a forewarning of a bluffed empty hand to follow.

The Japanese, Taiwanese, South Koreans, Filipinos, and Australians are more likely to assume their democracies are safe when they see a U.S. carrier that means business than when they hear the president or his secretary of state lecture an aggressor about its unacceptable 19th-century behavior, the Third World about its homophobia, or the world about the dangers of climate change.

Hanson compares Putin with Obama. "Being weak is sometimes dangerous (Putin). Being loud, self-righteous, and weak is always very dangerous indeed (Obama).

Read more here.