A hilarious social experiment unintentionally blew up in the faces of the shitlib academics who ran it when it busted their cherished shibboleths about male privilege and misogyny. An actor and actress were recruited to replay the Presidential debates between Trump and thecunt, except the actor played as thecunt and the actress as Trump, ostensibly to confirm the biases of the liberal academic audience that only anti-woman sexism caused thecunt to lose the election.
Unfortunately for the self-congratulatory libs, their egos were stroked against the grain.
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back.
Male shitlib academics are such nancyboys.
The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
Anti-reality: Male privilege.
Reality: Female privilege.
Feminists and Globohomo poz dealers want you to believe in the anti-reality of MUH MISOGYNY, when the reality is that female privilege is the incessant undercurrent of culture, derived from the fundamental premise that governs all social organization and policy: women are more reproductively valuable than are men. The Fundamental Premise — namely, the biological reality that the sexes are innately different in reproductive capacity and in the psychology that must flow from that reality — explains why, for instance, thecunt actually would have done WORSE on election day if she were a he, and Trump would have done better if he were a she.
Female privilege is getting a boost for being a woman, which is exactly what thecunt got, given how her core natural constituency — smug liberal academics — hated her male version.
The opposite of male privilege — male privation — is closer to what Trump had to overcome; a plain-talking, aggressive, masculine man will frighten away a lot of sensitive shitlib snowflakes, whereas a female version of himself would have lowered his natural antagonists’ defenses and rendered them more open to his message.
This also clues us into why Trump supporters tend to be feminine women and masculine men; both groups are more secure in their healthfully polarized sexuality and thus unlikely to be put off by a male leader behaving as an unabashedly masculine man. Masculinized shitlib females and feminized shitlib males often feel threatened by men (and women) who are closer to the SMV ideal for their sex.
I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.
Generally, people are more accepting of masculine women than feminine men (the latter are bigger traitor risks to the tribe), but neither are loved. Sexual polarity was the God of Biomechanics’ first order of business, and that means we — all of us, whether or not we admit it in heretic-burning company — prefer our women feminine and our men masculine.
I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.
Recall, as uncovered by Jonathan Haidt in his research of the moral priorities of liberals and conservatives, that libs have a more constricted moral universe and are therefore less able to understand and empathize with conservative moral considerations. Conservatives in contrast have a broader and more soundly distributed moral spectrum of concerns that one might call “adult”, (as opposed to liberals’ “juvenile morality” that focuses almost solely on harm and fairness).
I don’t expect any of these eureka moments to crack the libshit facade. The typical post-America libocrite can accommodate levels of COGDIS that would’ve left his lib-lite grandfather a quivering lump of neuroses. No, the only solution to the currently toxic shitlib insanity is a return to the kind of existential pain that can’t be mentally eaten away.