Thursday, May 5, 2016

Author of World's Most Boring Cartoon Applauds Most Boring Sexist Slam

Scott Adams, author of the exceptionally-unfunny Dilbert cartoon, recently gave Donald Trump some Big Time Props* for accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the "woman card."  He practically hyper-ventilates his admiration of Trump's purported smack-down:
"Trump’s 'woman card' strategy is weapons-grade persuasion. It is a 'high ground' maneuver with an 'identity' angle. Either one of those approaches can be a kill shot. But together? 
Holy sh*t. 
I’ve not seen anything like it. The engineering is superb."
To think that Trump's "woman card" jab merits this sort of excessive praise is pure fantasy magical thinking.  On the brilliance scale, accusing a female candidate of playing a "woman card" is the equivalent of, in the prank world, "pressing the gas pedal every time your friend tries to get in the car" or, in the comedy world, "guy gets hit in the balls, buddy says, 'ooh that's gonna leave a mark.'"

It's old hat. It's unoriginal. And, coming from the most objectively unqualified candidate in the field, and one who's already bragged about his dick size (what card did he play there, exactly?), is the height of hypocrisy. For all of these reasons the "woman card" thing was neither funny nor smart. A critique is best when it's specific and tailored to who is being critiqued. Accusing a woman of playing a "woman card" is not the universal "kill shot" Adams fantasizes it is, precisely because it could be leveled at literally any other female candidate, if her opponent so wished to go there, solely because that candidate was a woman and mentioned that fact ever.

That is to say, the "woman card" thing, in reality, has likely earned Trump no new supporters, and has only entrenched the dislike most women have of him. The barb, I suspect, only works for those Trump supporters, of which I'm sure there are many, who just really like to see men attempt to take Clinton, and honestly all ambitious, competent women, down a notch.

Adams praise of Trump is like the fear-admiration that certain cowardly, awful men have for characters like, say, Ramsay Snow in that they mistake cruelty for leadership or (worse) competence.

Remember this, too: There is little in the world that unites some men more than their perceived superiority over women. For such men, I think there would be no Trump-spoken insult thrown Clinton's way that they wouldn't pump their fists at and praise as the height of supreme strategery. Before this is over, I wouldn't rule out Trump saying "hag" or "witch" or "get in the kitchen and make me a sammich" or other such regressive barbs that man-babies 'round the world employ, only to have his Misogyny Bro Supporters at each turn shower him with Mensa membership cards.

Watch. In his piece, Adams then goes on to predict a Trump "landslide" in the general, with this bizarre divorced-from-reality bit:
"Trump will probably win with men for all the obvious reasons.** But winning with women has until lately seemed impossible. So the 'woman card' kill shot is aimed at women voters, not men. And what it does is flip the framing, as Trump likes to do. 
Clinton framing: It is time for a woman president.
Trump framing: Gender is not a job qualification 
I remind you that this is the year 2016. Trump’s message recognizes that gender should not be a hiring criteria. That’s the high ground. You can’t get higher.

And it gives women an identity choice. Do they pick the leader who says the 'woman card' is a qualification for a good job? Or do they pick the leader who has a long record of promoting and mentoring women because he thinks gender should not be a qualification? 
First off, Adams has used the phrase "kill shot" in reference to Clinton once again. Which is twice in his piece. Creepy.  Really fucking creepy. Like, I hope the proper authorities are paying attention to that one.

Secondly, if a panel looked at Trump and Clinton's resumes, with names and gender removed, one candidate would shine as being far and away the more qualified. That person would... not be Trump.

And therein we see the biggest lies that these sexist dipshits tell: That Clinton, the most qualified, competent candidate with the most pragmatic, informed, and fleshed-out policies of all candidates, is running entirely on a bumper-sticker-slogan platform that says the only reason she deserves votes is because she's a woman. And further, that a female equivalent of Donald Trump would ever stand a fucking chance, because society is now gender-blind and all hiring and election decisions are based solely on merit.

*H/T to Echidne, whom I have linked to, rather than to Scott Adams' blog directly. I'd rather drive traffic to her blog than to Adams'. But, his blog and the referenced blog post can be found easily enough, I trust, if you're inclined to read it in its entirety.

**Whatever could this mean?

No comments: