This comment was in response to my video entitled, Why Women Aren't Funny. In it, I begin by asking a very simple question: out of your top ten favorite comedians how many women are on that list? I'm a fan of comedy, I have dabbled in stand up before, and I love the art form, and some of my favorite comedians are Patrice O'Neal, Bill Burr, and Colin Quinn. I can honestly say that there are few women on my list and if they are on the list it isn't because of stand up but the comedic acting and skits they created. However, I can't deny that women when compared to men on average, aren't very funny. Why? Women don't have to be. In fact in my opinion women don't really need to be anything but there in a modern relationship. They just have to be there, try to be nice when they can, and be decent company while being physically attractive for their mate. The women comedians who are funny usually don't engage in stand-up and instead do skits, improv, or anything else that involves acting. This may be fine for some like Denton up here, but not for me, so there are no ladies on my top ten list.
As for men, lets face it, you guys have to be funny in order to attract the attention of a female. When a woman is listing off traits she would love in her potential mate she usually lists "funny" or "makes me laugh" as one of those. I've yet to meet a man who told me, "I think you're funny N.C. Clark, I think we should date." Never. Ever.
But no, Amy Schumer is a female and she must be funny to someone, therefore you may now disregard anything I said in the video and move on to another brilliant comment by one of my viewers.
What happens when you make a video entitled Women in Politics: A Tale of Two Representations? You get this lovely comment about how you didn't "take a stand."
Now the purpose of the video was not to take a specific stand, other than to say that women in politics
change nothing within the political sphere, other than try to score brownie points by using "feminine" buzz words and sayings like "as a woman" or "women's issues." Basically women try to pander to other women, and for women like Blessington, it works. Overall I challenged the belief that women have some kind of Patriarchal barrier that prevents them from becoming representatives and that female representation in politics doesn't matter in the slightest to someone like me who doesn't care about superficial representation (race, gender, etc). I care about ideology, values, and character. But wait, what about estrogen that has to do something to make women more valuable and make a real difference in politics. Newsflash, it doesn't. According to political pundits like Candy Crowley, who herself wanted to believe women can make positive changes in government, suddenly realized when it comes to the allocation of power, responsibilities, and representation women are no different than men. No less kind, and no less nurturing. I therefore presume that the nature of the job makes it so that women with the same personalities of leadership, confidence, and charisma choose the job of a political representative and ultimately make the same decisions or come to the same positions as their male counterparts.
On the contrary, if I were to believe this comment I would have to assume Senator Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or would be a better representative than Paul Ryan (R Wisconsin 1st Dist.) for me, because Pelosi and I are both women and Ryan is a man. This is laughable. The mere question of "did you know that Republican women candidates do not get any support from their party" further proves my point. This comment reeks of sexism or the preferential treatment of a specific gender all based upon stereotypes that some female politicians blatantly take advantage of. A good example of that manipulation is the Hilary Clinton's campaign ridiculous use of emphasizing how Clinton is a woman and that is what makes her special or different than the other candidates. No talk of substance or specifics. All they have to do is say, "I'm a woman, hear me roar!" and women like Blessington clap like trained seals.
Lastly, I have a comment recommending a response to a video entitled, Social Conservatism is Abuse. Sadly, I'm the only open conservative political pundit this person knows and so I feel it is my duty to at least speak on the matter.
Lets begin with the videos claims:
(1) Social conservatism is about going "back to the past."
(2) In the past he was emotionally and physically abused in the past.
(3) Therefore, it must be the case that social conservatism is abuse.
Why would he see it as abuse? "Well," he answers,"I see it as abuse, because it is. They are attempting to abuse the liberties and rights of others. Curtailing them, stripping them away, preventing them from expanding." He mentions that when he talks to social conservatives they seem to have no interest in the progressive ideals that involve marriage equality, gender equality, or dismantling the Patriarchy. All of which I don't find relevant to his argument, and I'll explain why.
First, for fun, lets accept his basic definitions of what is "conservative" and what is "progressive." Conservative according to the video creator is staying in the past, while progressive means
Now at first most people would agree with these definitions, however there is "conservative" is the general sense, "conservative" in the philosophical sense, and "conservative" in the political sense and lastly "conservative" and what it means to a person emotionally or personally. This person has decided to make the claim that conservatism, as defined by their own experience, actually is the true definition by which everyone who claims to be conservative actually is. More to the point, his personal became an objective definition which highly influences his interactions with others.
So what does this have to do with anything. It's simple. What if we accept the premise that conservative means staying in the past and progressive means going further, what does that have to do with the "good" or what values are correct? Nothing. Ideas of the past could just be as good as those in the future. Or perhaps the future's values and ideals are not as worthwhile as some would believe. What would be needed to solve this problem is clear context and understanding that conservatism actually is within the context of someone that is conservative... someone like myself.
What does it mean to be a conservative from a philosophical stand point? To find virtues that have lasting value and promote them. It is not to trample the rights of others, unless of course you are a conservative authoritarian, but then again any authoritarian group would want to trample your rights so unless you believe that "conservative" and authoritarian are synonymous and if so you have my sympathy.
Nevertheless back to the philosophical argument presented, or should I say, emotional argument. I believe that our country is founded upon the idea of the free market of ideas for someone to say, "that the idea that social conservatism is toxic," and ought to be eradicated is quite hysterical. Not only can't destroy an idea within this free market, but you ought not to. How is it moral to imply that an idea should be eradicated because you feel it is wrong. At least explain unemotionally why it's wrong! But no, just say that it's toxic, toss out some poor examples without context, and sprinkle on more vague definitions of what you feel is happening rather than what is, because I really need more of this in my life.
When it comes to "progressive" concepts, is it toxic to ask questions? Is it toxic to ask if abortion is legal, how are we to define when liberty begins and when does liberty end? Is it toxic to merely state that the average child does better in a family with a father and a mother? Is it toxic to say that conservatism isn't abuse? For a person who defines themselves as progressive, he really doesn't understand that today's progressive idea is tomorrow's conservative value. He has the attitude of a king, picking and choosing ideas he finds valuable for any personal reason then dictating that if you don't like these values, accept them, or dare I say question them, you sir and/or madam are toxic. He is literally the caricature of a progressive.
Honestly, I don't wish an idea to be eradicated because it's not worth the mental energy to wish something that can't come to fruition. You can propose new ideas that are contrary to what is now "conservative" or as the video creator defined it, "the past ideals," but keep in mind anything that you propose today will be old tomorrow if accepted by the general populous. As life moves on, we may die but ideas will stay around forever, some people like me call this progress.