Paul B. Farrell: Feminism's Useful Idiot

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

“Clinton vs. Rice is U.S. best bet for 2016.” Paul B. Farrell. Marketwatch.com. 11/09/2012.

Paul Farrell writes, “Research proves that women are better investors than men and, by extension, better at handling money, deficits and debt – and likely with fiscal cliffs.”

His article is a good example of Term 206: Feminist Hype. Expecting us to believe women are better based on little evidence while any evidence to the contrary is ignored.

After spending less than one minute searching the Internet, I found the following, “This year, more than 1 million women are expected to file for bankruptcy, outnumbering men by about 150,000 if trends hold.”

It is one piece of information that contradicts Paul Farrell’s assertion that women are better at handling money and debt.

So, I will also analyze the article that information came from to show how the Feminist Media tries to have it both ways.  

Here is the title of the article and where you can find it:

“Bankruptcy Law Pushes Women Closer to Edge.” Sandra Guy. Womensenews.org. 10/27/2005.

Note that both articles are trying to help women but come at it from different, but typical, feminist positions. Paul Farrell’s is Feminist Hype. Sandra Guy’s is “This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.”

Here are some excerpts from Sandra Guy’s article:

Critics say that means the new U.S. bankruptcy law, which makes it harder for filers to expunge debts, is particularly onerous for women. They expect the Oct. 17 law to saddle women with higher debts for longer periods and erode their economic security and ability to recover from financial crises not of their own doing.

[A professor at New York Law School Karen] Gross said women’s higher number of bankruptcy protection filings reflects a complex set of social barriers to financial security: lower earnings, less education about money and, often, sole responsibility for raising children.

“Girls are not being provided the kind of financial information and education that they need, either in school or while they are growing up,” said Miller. “Women told us they had to learn about finances by the seat of their pants.”

Granted, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances such as divorce or loss of a job that adversely affect the financial security of women and men.

In his article, Paul Farrell launches into mass character assassination. (Adhering to Guideline 7d-8.) “Men’s brains think like aggressive hyperactive kids playing video games.”

He writes, “In fact, the ‘war on women’ is a last-ditch defensive move by men to protect their frail egos, wounded machismo and fractured identity, so obvious in the futile legislative efforts to hang onto the old paternalistic culture.”

It is an example of how the phrase “war on women” is the new omni-“sexism”. (Adhering to Guideline 4a.)

When he writes, “frail egos, wounded machismo and fractured identity,” it is intended to mock and ridicule men. For women, these types of personality problems are usually phrased as “self-esteem issues” and in the next breath talk begins for how much money should be spent to help them.

We, men, don’t expect any more money to be spent on us, but less money needs to be spent and less needs to be done to advantage women. For example, get rid of affirmative action. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

Regarding the personality facet of “frail egos,” I challenge Paul Farrell -- and every social scientist -- to look at it anew. You will find it is feminists whose egos are so frail that they can’t admit men are better at anything. Men have invented almost everything on God’s green earth, but try to get a feminist to admit to or agree with that and see what happens.

Men agree that the windshield wiper and Liquid Paper are good inventions, but see if you can get a feminist to agree that the entire car and printing press, typewriter, radio, TV, computer, Internet, mobile phones, etc. are greater accomplishments.

About Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, Paul Farrell writes, “Two powerful women. Both Secretaries of State. The perfect leaders for a new America.” [Emphasis added.] (Adhering to Guidelines 26a and 27a: Portraying women in the best possible light and as perfect.)

Before assuming they are perfect, first, ask them some specific questions.

What are their plans to balance the budget?

Have they ever used their powerful positions to benefit financially or politically?

Paul Farrell writes, “Whether old paternalistic politicians, young alpha-male gamers or men with a need to dominate,”

And, “Men are natural warriors, whether in defense budgeting, stock trading or with some deep psychological need to dominate.”

He uses the phrase, men’s “need to dominate” twice and generally insults men throughout his article. (Adhering to Guideline 5b: Tear down boys and men at all costs.) 

There is no greater display of dominance or abuse of power than pro-choice feminists murdering babies born alive and viable unborn babies in the second and third trimesters. (For proof of murdered babies born alive, do an Internet search for Dr. Kermit Gosnell.)

Paul Farrell quotes money manager Jeremy Grantham “whose firm manages $100 billion worldwide.” (He seems to be good at handling money.)

[The world now needs leaders “with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained.”]

Well, when you think of people with a historical perspective, you immediately think of women. They love sitting around talking about history.

History aside, where are all of the supposedly smart women screaming about the national debt? I would like to meet them.

He writes, “In a rising market men tell themselves they’re geniuses. When falling, they blame Congress and regulators.”

Feminists such as Paul Farrell tell women they’re geniuses. When failing, they blame Congress and everybody else.

Here are some excerpts from Sandra Guy’s article where feminists adhere to the basic feminist attitude of “This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.”

Advocates for women’s economic security support a wide range of legislation that would help women become financially self-sufficient and protected from bankruptcy. Those policies include paid family medical leave, benefits for part-time workers, increases in the federal minimum wage, and more funding for job training and education programs that help women advance in the workforce.

[Karen Gross is quoted as saying,] “Some less seismic suggestions are to increase women’s and girls’ financial literacy levels, address their fear of numbers and improve their comfort levels with quantitative skills.”

Miller criticized the bankruptcy law for focusing on a debtor’s personal responsibility while ignoring credit card companies’ marketing campaigns and exorbitant interest rates.

Blaming others is a personality flaw that is shared by both women and men.

Taken together, Farrell’s and Guy’s articles are good examples of Guideline 28a: The Feminist Media expects us to praise women as “better investors” and as “perfect”, but if they aren’t, then we are expected to pity them as “victims”.

I challenge anyone to conduct a scientific survey, subject to peer review, about which sex – and of which political subgroup -- wants to balance the budget.

The Feminist Media won’t touch it because they know either way they lose.

Imagine if 60% of men and 60%, or more, of women want a balanced budget, it makes the Democratic Party politicians look bad, because the majority of people want a balanced budget. And, if it is understood that “perfect” women want a balanced budget, then a lot of political temporizing ends.

But if the results come back 60% of men want a balanced budget while only 30% of women want one, it makes women look dumber than men at handling debt -- and that destroys a lot of Feminist Hype.

Of course, the Feminist Media can try to spin it and say, see, it’s because women are so smart that they know the government needs to spend (invest) recklessly (wisely) and increase the debt even more. It’s good for the economy.

I would like nothing more than to have 535 Ann Coulters in Congress. I’m sure left of center men would like to have 535 Hillary Clintons in Congress. The men on each side love the women on the same side. It isn’t women vs. men. It’s more left vs. right, or blue vs. red, although those are crude categorizations too. 

Paul Farrell could be the nicest man in the world to his family and friends, but in a lot of his articles he comes off like an old coot on a bizarre rant. His analysis is incorrect. His insights into human nature are one-sided and biased. And, his commentary is predictable politically correct femishist.

So, why do I bother to read any of his articles? He makes me feel smart.