Conclave of Congressional Demonrat Crones Says "Never Blame a Woman"

James Taranto has a great article on the hysterical double standards of the so-called female mind. But men's attitudes towards women go back aways and there is a tendency to say that chivalry and hypocrisy are both just shields against what women consider porn and check this out if you don't believe me.

The Washington Post's Lisa Miller echoes the complaint: "The commentary and analysis of this season's latest and greatest sex scandal . . . is downright medieval. . . . Powerful men are expected to stray. . . . But the women with whom they consort are unredeemed for all of history."

They have a point; there is a double standard. But the feminist critics misunderstand the nature of that double standard.

Petraeus himself, after all, has not exactly been "redeemed." Quite the contrary. The affair came to public attention precisely because of his resignation. No one can take away his considerable accomplishments, but his public career appears to be at an end. History will remember the ridiculous and humiliating way in which it concluded. No doubt he is paying a private price as well: "As you can imagine, she's not exactly pleased right now," ABC News quoted Steve Boylan, a retired Army colonel with a gift for understatement, as saying of Mrs. Petraeus.

When commentators observe that Petraeus must have been tempted by Broadwell, they are not making excuses for his errant behavior. They are merely stating the obvious: that his was a failure of self-control. It is generally understood that men are weak, subject to sexual temptation.

If Broadwell is assigned a disproportionate share of the "responsibility' for the affair, it is because of a failure to acknowledge that women are weak, too--that "human fallibility" does indeed work both ways. If he found a younger, physically attractive woman irresistible, it seems a reasonable surmise that she found a powerful, famous, brilliant man equally so. Indeed, how could it not be so? If either one of them had successfully resisted the attraction, dangerous to both of them, there would have been no affair.

Feminists are not above employing double standards when it suits their purposes. Lisa Miller, the Washington Post columnist quoted above, was last seen in this column disparaging "the smug fecundity of the Republican [presidential] field." Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann all have too many children for Miller's liking, and despite her including Bachmann in the list, she blamed the men: "What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs."

So Miller implies that it is "smug" to have a large family, but according to her "powerful men are expected to stray..."

This kind of blatant hypocrisy is why the Washington Post is slowly sliding into the dustbin of history just like its complicit companions in moral turpitude, the major newspapers and networks in the media.

Can't wait to see them all taken out to the giant piles of refuse that history coughs up to lie, cheat and steal in the name of the "marketplace of ideas." But here's more proof that women have no concept of consistency or elevated perspective on the Demonrat side of the aisle.

As for Fudge and the other defenders of Susan Rice against supposed sexism, they seem to be implying that women in powerful public positions should be spared the rough treatment that would be accorded to men. "In unusually personal terms," the AP notes, "the Democratic women lashed out at Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham." The story does not mention if they lashed out at a third critic of Rice, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Her name does appear in the report, but only in passing, and nine paragraphs after McCain and Graham are first mentioned.

Isn't it interesting that the aptly named Fudge & other BC fatties would issue an illiterate and biased statement hating on men. But the mental wastrel Senator from California outdoes the Black Caucus with her breathtaking stupidity and ignorance:

Then again, the standard is different when the black woman named Rice is a Republican. In January 2007, an AP dispatch noted "Sen. Barbara Boxer's remark last week to [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice that the secretary of state, single and childless, doesn't have a 'personal price' to pay in Iraq."

To call the imbecilic moron Boxer a moral failure is an understatement. But the hypocrisy in the Demonrat Party extends to the culpability of the Rat-in-Chief:

A final irony is that the feminist defense of Susan Rice is ultimately in the service of shielding a powerful man from accountability. After all, Obama was not merely being chivalrous when he said that if McCain and Graham "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." He was also changing the subject away from the failure of his administration, which includes officials of both sexes, to give an honest accounting of the Benghazi fiasco.

Read the whole article to see why even when he feigns chivalry, this specimen of deceptive BS hides his failures by pointing "Look, over there, male chauvinist pigs!"