Sex and Sensibility

/

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by the great American humorist James Thurber called The War Between Men and Women.  The idea of such a War has been around for quite some time, of course, whether in fantasy or as an actuality, but it seemed to take on a more virulent character in the 20th century as women acquired and exercised the right to vote and with the advent of feminism.

More recently, disputes regarding gender 1 its relation to sex and sexuality have further complicated matters.  Complicated them to such an extent that they may be beyond the understanding of an aged fellow like me, alas.  But, being shameless, I'll expound on them nonetheless.

Our endless fascination with sex has generated what seem to be significant and perhaps disturbing concerns regarding masculinity--what it is to be a man, how men should act, how they should behave, particularly where women are concerned.  In some cases, these concerns have had results I think peculiar.  The so-called "incels" strike me as particularly odd.  As I understand it, they're young men who've made a kind of lifestyle out of resentment against women for not satisfying their emotional expectations and physical needs.  It's a sadly unworthy to blame others for your perceived failures; sadder still to take a kind of perverse pride in doing so.

In addition, it seems that there's a new psychological or social condition called 'bigorexia" which is supposed to be taking over the lives of young men.  It's an obsession regarding muscularity, which apparently compels them to attend gymnasiums and workout constantly in order to develop as many muscles as possible, and so become more "manly."

Perhaps as part of the unfortunate resurgence of the Abrahamic religions, there's an increasing demand that women conform to "traditional" female roles.  One sect in particular champions "family voting."  The wife and mother, it's proposed, shouldn't vote.  Her role is that of homemaker and mother. The father and husband should vote on her behalf, and apparently on behalf of the children.   It seems to resurrect, as it were, the ideal of the pater familias.

As may be expected, those who think their masculinity and the masculinity of others are threatened, or being diminished, find disputes regarding gender roles and the existence of transgenders especially alarming; almost as alarming as the existence of gay people.  As a result, they actually fear that they may be exposed to them.  They especially fear that children will be.

Misogyny thrives in such a climate.  So does outrage.  So does pandering, particularly by politicians and pundits.  

In our Great Republic, we have a love/hate relationship with the sexual act--more accurately with sexual conduct of any kind.  We love to have sex (or most of us do, in any case).  But we hate having to acknowledge it, or address it, except in limited circumstances, and most of all seek to judge the sexuality of others.  If we had any sense, though, when it comes to sex we wouldn't care what consenting adults do, or how they look or act, or what others may think about our sexuality and sexual conduct.  

Accustomed To Assassination

 

What struck me as most curious about the shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner was that, once I knew that no serious harm was done by the shooter, and that he had been apprehended, I felt no pressing curiosity about what had taken place.  I'd learn what there was to learn soon enough.

I watched some of the news coverage after the shooting had taken place and saw guests of the event milling about, drinking and talking together, some of them even smiling.  Nobody seemed particularly concerned.  The talking heads described what they saw, and then they and the various pundits and politicians summoned to appear in front of the cameras began to solemnly abhor violence.  I confess I returned to watching what I was watching before learning of the shooting.

This is not to say I wasn't appalled by the shooting.  But in a disturbing way it wasn't interesting.

I had seen it all before, of course.  Eventually, politicians of one party began to blame those of the other party for the act; something I had also seen before.  I assume there will be talk of stricter gun control, which will be ignored.  Something else seen before.  We can accurately predict what will be done or said in each case.  I missed nothing by ignoring the immediate tumult.  

We await the next shooting.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say we expect it. We accept the violence, and are resigned to it as something regrettable but inevitable.  It's just a part of life in our Great Union.

The fact that the shooting was in this case politically motivated makes it less common than the other mass shootings which seem to take place, now, on a daily basis. But we can't say it's unique or unusual on that basis.  We have a history of assassinating political figures, or trying to do so.  Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were killed.   William Seward was shot.  Teddy Roosevelt was shot while speaking in Milwaukee.  Huey Long and the Kennedys were killed.  Truman, Ford and Reagan survived the attacks made on them.  The list goes on.

Politically motivated shootings or attacks are themselves used for political purposes.  It's no longer possible to be surprised by attacks on politicians who so often attack each other.  We're jaded observers of the efforts for and against our jaded politicians, violent or otherwise.  The outrage they express doesn't even seem genuine anymore.

What have we become when violence and death are considered dull, unless they can be used for personal or political benefit?

For His Own Purpose

 

It was Shakespeare, through his character Antonio, who originated the phrase "the devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose."  The statement is made in The Merchant of Venice.

It seems we're to be treated to a kind of scriptural spectacle.  Politicians will be reciting Biblical passages for our edification.  I can't help but wonder if this is a serious effort or secretly intended as mockery of both scripture and those chosen to intone it for our delight in its absurdity.  The thought of politicians, of all people, citing the Bible brings Shakespeare's comment to mind.

Not that I mean to compare the grotesque rogues gallery which will solemnly read passages of the Bible to us to the devil or any demons of significance.  They're more the kind of nasty, dirty, potty-mouthed minor spirits with silly names which are said to whirl around the possessed, expelling foul odors and making rude noises during exorcisms. The mere thought of them citing scripture or pretending to be moral is hilarious. Whatever passages they may recite, one can assume they'll shun those most relevant to their own many deficiencies and hypocrisy.  The one about a camel passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind readily enough.

This spectacle could only happen here.  It's hard to imagine that another nation would tolerate posturing of this kind.  Can it really be that we're so naive as to think such pandering is in good faith?  Why would anyone suffer such sanctimony from people who clearly don't practice what they dare to preach?  And yet they're encouraged to engage in such shamelessness.  It's remarkable what the so-called religious are willing to do in pursuit of their fantasies of a theocracy.  It doesn't matter how contemptible spokesmen are provided they speak the appropriate words.

But this kind of lurid display is typical of a country which has always made show or circus of Christianity.  TV Evangelism, faith- healing, traveling salvation shows; we're enamored of excess in matters of faith, conscious perhaps that in most of our lives we ignore the words we recite so strenuously and emotionally when watched-- when the camera is on us, so to speak.  When it pays to appear holy.  And here it pays often.

Politics or relgion.  It's all part of the same show, the same con, at the end of the day.

"Matters Of Morality"

 

If you look up the definition of "morality" you'll find that its meaning varies somewhat with its use in a sentence, but that generally it involves a code of conduct based on conceptions of right and wrong.  The assertion made recently by a convert to Catholicism to the effect that the Pontifex Maximis, the Pope, should concern himself with "matters of morality" therefore makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, though, is the apparent belief that comments made by the Pope regarding war don't concern matters of morality.  They clearly do.  Questions and debate regarding the morality of war and the conduct of war have been going on for centuries.  It's difficult to believe any adult human would contend otherwise.  But we see now that some of them can, and do, in the service of immorality.

Of course, what truly disturbs those who criticize the Pope at this time is that his comments relate to the war (or whatever they like to call it) they commenced.  A little thought on their part would make make it evident that comment was to be expected given the braying being heard about Jesus joining in the war effort, or at least being asked by prayer to seek or sanction overwhelming violence.  But it's unclear whether even a little thought is to be expected of the minions of this dreary regime.

The posting of a meme showing the President in the garb Jesus is usually shown wearing and healing the sick may have been an enormously stupid effort to justify the war he chose to wage, but this isn't likely.  For him, his actions require no justification.  It's more likely given the source that it's intended to depict him as a Christ figure; a product of his limitless self-love. Perhaps this is more evidence to be used if there is an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.  Enormous stupidity or blasphemous hubris may support its application.

I suspect that, as far as this freakish administration is concerned, what it does and has done or will do are never "matters of morality."  It sees itself as being beyond good and evil, to which morality does not apply.  If it did apply, though, the Pope's comments would be bad or wrong, as the acts of this President and his administration must be right  Given the meme which was posted and then deleted, what else could be the case?

Some Thoughts On The 25th Amendment

 

There's much talk about the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of our Great Republic (I'm not sure it still is one, but let's pretend it is for purposes of this post) and its application to the madhouse in which we find ourselves.  I'm uncertain, though, if those who invoke it know what it says.

The 25th Amendment is of relatively recent origin, having been adopted in the 1960s.  It appears it was intended to make it clear just how a president may be removed during the time in which the president serves, and what happens at the end of the term of office.  Perhaps this became a matter of concern to Congress due to our history of assassination.   If presidents are going to be assassinated, it would be prudent to have a replacement method at hand.  It may also be the case, however, that there was a concern that a president should be removable, so to speak, in circumstances where there has been no successful assassination, or impeachment, but a president is otherwise unable to discharge the duties of the office.

That was the case with Woodrow Wilson.  He suffered a stroke after he was outmanuvered and even bamboozled by the British and French representatives at Versailles.  This would have been hard for a man like Wilson to swallow. He seems to have seen himself as a modern-day Moses, if not a messiah.

Regardless, his stroke incapacitated him, and Mrs. Wilson and some agreeable politicians or friends presided over the United States for a time.

What the Amendment says in pertinent part is that if the Vice President and a majority of the members of the cabinet believe the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the presidency, they may submit a statement to that effect to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Then the Vice President becomes "Acting President" and assumes all the power and duties of the President. The President is no longer President. However, the President may in turn submit a declaration to the same officers stating he is capable, in which case he'll be President once more, unless the Vice President, or rather Acting President, and a majority of the cabinet within four days submit yet another declaration that the President remains incapable.

In that case, the Congress decides the issue.  But a two thirds majority of each House  must find the President is incapable.  If there is no such super majority, the President is once more President.

The language of the Amendment provides no guidance regarding how it may be determined that a President "unable to dischage" the powers and duties of the office or what that means.  So it appears it isn't necessary for a President to be incompetent or mentally ill to be removed under the Amendment.  Nothing in the language of the Amendement indicates there i. such a requirement, and it would have been easy enough to impose such a condition.  Nor would the fact that a President is unpopular or unwise be cause for removal.  One could be an inept President and still carry out a President's duties.

Would the fact that a President has deplorable taste be relevant, or that he/she uses vulgar language? Since a President takes an oath to preserve, protect and protect the Constitution, I would think that a violation of that oath would suffice, as that oath sets forth one of the duties of a President.

In any case, the language used in the Amendment suggests that if it comes to a decision of the Congress it may be difficult to establish an inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, due to the Amendment's lack of definition..  But there are other factors which would make the invocation of the 25th Amendment unlikely in this case, in this time.

The primary factor is the fact that the Vice President, the cabinet members and most of the members of Congress lack the moral courage to proceed under the Amendment. Or, they may feel that their jobs depend on his goidwill. They're slaves, thralls of the president.  It would take a great deal of moral courage to invoke the Amendment, and that courage is lacking in those who now may make use of it.