Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.
« Paul B. Farrell: Feminism's Useful Idiot | Main | Feminists Are Anti-Science »

Joan Walsh: A Master Manipulator

I have never met Joan Walsh and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends. But her articles contain many examples of Feminist Media bias. If you want some practice applying the Guidelines to articles, Walsh’s archive is a good place to start.


Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“What Rachel Maddow said.” Joan Walsh. 4/30/2012.


Walsh’s article is about the “pay gap” and “gender discrimination”. (Adhering to Guideline 3a: Omni-discrimination.) Walsh uses a brief debate on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, between MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Alex Castellanos, to try to score points for the Feminist Media’s (Adhering to Guideline 7d-1: Feminist Media bias by complicity.)  


Walsh begins with an old feminist setup: Men Bad/Women Good. (Term 201: Political Correctness.)


She praises Maddow. “Maddow the guest always brings the facts, usually with charm.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, Maddow is smart, wonderful, and perfect. How could she be wrong? (Adhering to Feminist Style of Argument 301.)


Walsh describes Maddow’s debate opponent, Alex Castellanos, as a “serial sexist”. (Adhering to Guideline 4a: Omni-sexism.)

She mentions how Castellanos called Hillary Clinton a “bitch” back in 2008. (Adhering to Guideline 21b: Feminists hold a grudge for a long time.)


Walsh writes that Castellanos “condescended” to Maddow. It’s amazing that he didn’t condescend even more.


Maddow is the author of a book titled, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. It is a book about weighty matters of geopolitics and the military-industrial complex. So she can’t be too ignorant. She is paid millions of dollars per year by MSNBC and surely has pondered why she gets paid so much more than the average American. It’s because the factors are different. There aren’t very many prime-time hosts on 24-hour news networks. 


Castellanos tried to explain how differences, in 25 job-related factors, result in a wage gap. Oh, there’s a wage gap, but it isn’t a discriminatory wage gap. It is a fair wage gap based on lots of different factors. Due to time constraints he mentioned only one factor, and that is men work more hours per week on average than women.


Here, Walsh strikes a cold, radical feminist tone about motherhood, “women pay dearly for the time they spend at home with their kids.”


Then, Walsh uses another old feminist trick. She feigns ignorance of all information outside of Maddow’s brief debate. She finds Castellanos’ example of just one factor unsatisfactory but feels no responsibility to research or mention other factors. (Adhering to Guideline 7c: Feminist Media bias by omission and Guideline 17a: selective research.) 


Here are some books and articles explaining the wage gap.




Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It. By Warren Farrell.


The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market: The Role of Employment Discrimination Policies. By June E. O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill.




“The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth.” Diana Furchtgott-Roth. July 26, 2012.


“Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists.” Christina Hoff Sommers. November 04, 2012.


“There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap.” Carrie Lukas. April 12, 2011.


“Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever.” Kay S. Hymowitz. City Journal.

Summer 2011 Vol. 21 no. 3. 8/4/2011.


I guarantee that both Walsh and Maddow have read many articles like the ones listed above. It isn’t that Walsh and Maddow can’t understand, it’s that they won’t understand. They refuse to understand. If they admit to understanding even just one factor, the game is over. Because if they show they are capable of understanding one factor, then they are capable of understanding the other factors. 


Walsh’s article is a good example of how the feminists’ Style of Argument 301 works. I agree that Walsh and Maddow are neither ignorant nor stupid. And, I agree with the authors of the books and articles explaining that the wage gap is due to job-related factors.


Which leaves the last part of the equation. If Walsh and Maddow aren’t ignorant, and if the facts are against them, then for them to persist with the idea of a discriminatory wage gap makes them liars and manipulators.


Walsh is a hard-core feminist and toward the end of her article she vents some of her anger and bitterness. She makes a controversial statement, “it’s undeniable that Romney and the GOP support policies that disproportionately hurt women.” She continues, “to the extent that they, as well as GOP governors, are pushing public worker layoffs, those hit women harder too, since they’re more likely to work in the public sector than men.” Due, at least in part, to a robust affirmative action program. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. The government disproportionately helps women.


The above paragraph is a good example of socialist feminism. The Government is mostly controlled by Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists, with the Underclass dependent on Government bureaucrats, and Government bureaucrats dependent on the Underclass to need their services, and all of the groups are necessary for votes for the Democratic Party – the party of big government – to pass legislation to make Government even bigger. 


Walsh pours it on in the last paragraph complaining about “how much disrespect men get away with in debating women on TV.” (She’s adhering to Guideline 6a: reverse accuse.) There is no greater disrespect than that which is shown to men by feminists, such as Walsh and Maddow, telling bald-faced lies about the issues.