It’s not been a good week for Confederate heritage advocates. They are unhappy about what’s happened at the University of Mississippi, where it appears that advocates of flying a Confederate flag have had a rough time telling the truth as they suffer setback after setback. Now comes news that the favorite candidate of most Confederate heritage advocates, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, is in serious trouble because of his crass and lewd remarks (and that’s kind) anout women, which most observers believe includes an endorsement of sexual assault. No word yet from Virginia Whine Country, which has been very protective of candidate Trump, about whether protests against sexual assault are simply new examples of political correctness, the target of many a mindless post that are little more than a clipping service of the alt-right. We await efforts to find a Gordon Wood quote that can be twisted in suppport of that blogger’s position.
Without a doubt, however, one need only look at what Virginia Flaggers spokesperson and webmaster Connie Chastain says about Trump to understand that some corners of Confederate heritage advocacy are also busily engaged in conducting a war on women. Like Trump, Chastain favors criminalizing the decision of women to have abortions:
Even Trump has thought better of this, but Chastain has not.
And, just like our friend at Virginia Whine Country, Chastain decides it’s all the fault of the left and the media:
Note the identity of the single retweeter. Note also that I guess that one can conclude that Trump’s past is irrelevant, but not so Clinton’s past … or that non-leftists don’t care about treating women with respect.
Of course, one remembers that Chastain was also a big fan of claiming that women often made false claims about being raped (unless the person being accused was Bill Clinton, I guess). This was a theme of two of her underwhelmingly successful novels. Endorsing sexual assault as a way to approach women is okay in Chastain’s mind, because we can set it aside as “locker room talk”; that such talk, if put into action, results in rape seems irrelevant (will it elicit more squawking from her about false rape accusations?).
It’s a small step from here to the reasoning of sexual predators that women “really want it” and that “no” means “try harder.”
After all, just saying one’s sorry is good enough.
Note who retweeted both of these as well.
After all, Chastain wants Trump to whack people, including Clinton:
Funny that she chose that means of expression.
Mind you, Chastain thinks something’s wrong with women (“cackling hens”?) who protest such treatment:
Moreover, “real women” wouldn’t get upset:
That’s right … this controversy about advocating sexual assault is simply “nothing,” and the best proof comes from the sales of a book that is not Chastain’s (jealous, Chastain?). Let’s mock the outrage over such behavior as nothing more than make-pretend about “women’s delicate widdle feelings.”
What else could you expect from someone who seems obsessed about false rape accusations? So … anger over language advocating sexual assault is nothing more than an act to placate “women’s delicate widdle feelings”? Really?
(Yes … Chastain’s gone the fake-name route in crafting an alternative identity of “Polly Graff,” although it did not take her long to drop the pretense that it was her.)
We await Chastain’s efforts to identify which men engage in such talk. As her previous interaction has been with Republican politicians, Confederate heritage apologists, and false rape accusation protesters, we can’t wait to hear about her experiences about what is said in these locker rooms.
But don’t mistake Chastain for a feminist …
Note the wording: it’s not “pseudo-feministic women,” but “feministic pseudo-women.” Real women aren’t feminists: feminists are “pseudo-women.” And no, folks, that’s not a mistake … she says “pseudo-women” twice.
We await the usual retort from Virginia Whine Country that protesting lewd talk and endorsements of sexual assault are nothing more than exercises in political correctness from a leftist academic who’s attacking a political candidate … because, apparently, these things should not be attacked. They are nothing more than locker room talk, as if that’s an acceptable excuse.
Finally, note who likes (and retweets) Chastain’s Twitter activity on behalf of sexual predators … Susan Hathaway. The fact is that Hathaway and her followers have politicized their movement in explicit ways by endoring Trump, not just as individuals, but as an organization:
Oh, well.
The heritage of hate continues. If anything, it’s grown, because it now includes people who protest sexual assault and the victimization of women not named Susan Hathaway.
Crossroads 
Hey Brooks, it’s your blog, and ya’ know I love ya’, but can’t we get back to the Civil War era? (I know, there is a nexus to modern events, and I also know you are a presidential historian, but your blog, in my humble opinion, is more interesting when readers comment on non-modern-day political issues.) These two candidates hearken back to “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa . . . .” I await the assault on me by some of your fans.
BTW, “I like Ike.” (After all, he DID live on a Civil War battlefield.)
You’re right … it’s my blog. 🙂
Thirty days and counting … but it’s best to recall that I view certain Confederate heritage groups as largely expressions of present-day political opinions, with a minimal interest in actual history (or in honoring the service of Confederate soldiers). Note that I stay away from the politics when it does not fit a concern of the blog.
Will you ever post that letter from Sherman to Stanton that I emailed you about? 😉
Maybe.
OOPS, somehow I omitted my last name. I am not a fan of anonymous commenters (such as “Border Ruffian”). MARK SNELL. Nonetheless, I look forward again when we get past this election and return to Civil War history and historiography. Again, just an opinion, and we all know what is said about “opinions.”
And now you have your opportunity. 🙂
KKKonnie is just pissed off that intelligent people don’t buy into her bovine excrement. She’s built an echo chamber and lives in it 24/7 with her tinfoil hat. She will throw anybody under the bus to protect her racist world and she sees St. Donald as the Messiah for her white supremacy.
She will happily join in with demeaning women and letting them suffer at the hands of Trump and the rest of his fellow sleazebags, including many in the Confederate Heritage groups. She doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anybody in this world if they don’t agree with her and her racist worldview.
The poor woman is just a self-deluded disaster who has access to the Internet so she can type and share her opinions with the few people who listen to her. The rest of us are amused by her as we watch her shriek incoherently.
I agree with Connie on a lot of her tweets. I’m a Trump supporter and if women like Hillary want to play with the big boys they’d better get a tougher skin. As someone once said, “Politics ain’t beanbag”. Seems like she and her supporters can “Dish it out, but they can’t take it”. Or more accurately, they can’t take without screeching about sexism and racism every 2 seconds.
What’s any of that got to do with some moron (who’s been playing con games for 40 years and scamming the bankruptcy/tax systems) talking about groping women as one of his celebrity privileges?
At this point, I’m only voting for Trump as the lesser of 2 evils, and in the hope that he will address issues. The latter being admirable, but also being no guarantee. I’m under no illusions as to who he has been. Personal aversion to libertarians and the abysmal performance of Gary Johnson rules Johnson out. Don’t know enough about the Green Party candidate.
Here you go.
I don’t think a racist/misogynist/religious bigot is the lesser of two evils. I don’t see how this could be.
Clinton’s emails, and her inability to take any responsibility. Not even Trump’s assorted misbehavior matches that.
What about them? You’ve run out of things to use against her, so all you have left is some e-mails which when you get right down to it aren’t that big a deal.
So yes, Trump’s assorted misbehavior matches and surpasses it. Character counts and he doesn’t have any.
How about his life-long operation of various scams and fraudulent schemes? Maybe you hold one of those valued degrees from Trump U. And I ain’t hardly a Hillary guy, Pilgrim. But this guy is so far off the qualification charts that it defies description.
It wasn’t “some emails”. It was tens of thousands hosted on a private server, where any enterprising hacker had a easy target. Several of the emails had classifications ranging all the way up to Top Secret. Literally. She won’t take the smallest responsibility for this. And we are supposed to trust her to be President.
I don’t hold any degree from Trump U. I’m not sure about Trump’s degree of knowledge of Trump U; the only info from my usual source for reliable criticism of Trump at Ethics Alarms doesn’t say anything about that, and only mentions Trump bribing Florida’s Attorney General to not investigate.
Clinton didn’t break the law when it comes to the emails. She violated policy but not the law. Trump, by his own admission on the tape, is probably guilty of sexual assault–a crime. Women have started to come forward to tell how he assaulted them. It took time for Bill Cosby to be charged, looks like it will take some time for Trump to be charged.
Is this how sexual assault is diminished and eventually dismissed – by downgrading it to “misbehavior”? Children misbehave. Trump is a self-admitted sexual predator. There is a difference. The fact that I have to point this out is disturbing.
“Is this how sexual assault is diminished and eventually dismissed – by downgrading it to “misbehavior”? ”
__________
Yes. There was a member of Congress from my state Who was interviewed last night on the electric picture radio who said he would consider withdrawing his support from Donald Trump if he believed that Trump actually enjoyed raping women. That’s from a sitting member of Congress, although not one who is generally thought of as one of the shining lights of the GOP.
http://gawker.com/5665630/politician-stands-next-to-a-lingerie-model-while-wearing-duckie-pajamas
Well, what’s a little bribery action when your campaign is based on allegedly illegal conduct by your opponent. Care to wager on whether The Donald got any $$$$$ from the Trump U. scam? Maybe he thought it was just another package from Putin.
Quote: he would consider withdrawing his support from Donald Trump if he believed that Trump actually enjoyed raping women.
Let them all reveal themselves for who they are and what they think and then attempt to take it
back and “apologize”. It’s hard to stuff feathers back into a broken pillow.
We have gone from a presidential candidate gloating about his sexual predation, to “Dish it out but they can’t take it” Take what? Trump’s version of the “man’s world”? Is this okay with you as it is with Connie? According to Connie, women “wanted to abandon the kitchen….” so they deserved to be punished by predatory behaviour for the audacity of going to work? I have a hot flash for folks like Connie: There are ladies — yes, LADIES — whose husbands died, and they were left to carry the workload. And then there is the single mother, who kept her baby which was a result of an assault, who had to go off to work. These women are real, and they exist in my family. Even if the choice is their own to enter the workplace, no one, NO ONE deserves to be preyed upon at any time for any reason.
The discussion is not about “whining” or “screeching” or “sexism”. This about the revelation that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, and not only is it okay with Connie, rather, she demeans and belittles those find this behaviour repugnant.
Well said.
I actually applaud the VA Flaggers now Brooks. They are a political organization that projects their political beliefs on the past. At least now they are being transparent about it.
Connie Chastain and Susan Hathaway were listed in this KKK Doxed document.
http://pastebin.com/wVcM7S8B
Connie Chastain and Susan Hathaway are listed in this document of KKK Doxxed. http://pastebin.com/wVcM7S8B
Connie Chastain and Susan Hathaway are listed in this document of KKK Doxxed. http://pastebin.com/wVcM7S8B
Your honor, the defense rests. I’d rather be discussing the elections of 1860 and 1864.
Has Connie heard of Thatcher, Merkel, Gandhi and Meir, all capable women who have lead modern democratic states.
BTW does anyone else think that Sarah Palin should have stayed in her kitchen where she could have kept a close eye on the Russians.
Hi Brooks.
Good question, and imho you are right to bring the 21st Century into your Subject study of History. (Herstory). 🙂
Further to your query “Connie Chastain’s War on Women … And Guess Who Supports Her?”
This very day it was reported that if the election were held today, the Republican nominee would win, as long as only white men get to vote.
(As it was in the1850s.)
The female vote is decidedly against the nominee, and will likely make all the difference on voting day.
(Except for pro-Trumpist women who measure their self-worth strictly, solely, by what men think of them; how MEN see & treat them).
A new civil war of sorts–a higher octave :of the one before. Among the issues of: black vs white, majority vs minorites, (class) rich vs poor–add war between the sexes; the dichotomy reflected, though, maybe, dare-not-expressed, even within married couples.
My two cents worth fwiw.
Helga
Historical asterisk: some black men were able to vote in the 1850s, in New England and, under certain conditions, in New York. But on the whole you are correct.
You are also correct as to the gender split when it comes to the two leading candidates. However, as Chastain’s rants suggest, not all women are on the same side (same with the men). She’s clearly pro-Trump. Draw your own conclusions. From what I know of you, you have no problem being both feminine and feminist. Am I correct?
Hi Brooks.
Thank you for your observations.
With respect to this one: “From what I know of you, you have no problem being both feminine and feminist. Am I correct?”
Absolutely!
Regarding your valid “two sides” observation re the gender split, I’m wondering how far pro-Trump women, especially the subject one, are willing to go? Willingly surrender their/her right to vote?
(I refer to the latest social media movement among (some of?) these folks: #Repeal the 19th.)
For those here, who think you should be sticking to the 1860s, Brooks, this ‘business’ really would take us back to 1860, when women had no vote.
Helga
Helga: “For those here, who think you should be sticking to the 1860s, Brooks, this ‘business’ really would take us back to 1860, when women had no vote.”
Hi Helga,
Based on many of the comments that I am reading in assorted venues, indeed, there are aspects of this conversation regarding women that are reminiscent of the bad old days. Such characterizations of “screeching” and “leaving the kitchen” are so grotesquely antiquated in this day, that I fear a diagnosis of “The Vapors” is just around the bend.
Hi Shoshana,
In response to your observation “Such characterizations of “screeching” and “leaving the kitchen” are so grotesquely antiquated in this day, that I fear a diagnosis of “The Vapors” is just around the bend.” I think you’ll appreciate this one. NYT columnist Maureen Dowd said it best:
“Well, you know, for a couple of centuries, women were considered temperamentally and biologically unsuited to hold a higher office. So, in this race, there’s someone who gets their feelings hurt really easily, and their emotions are all over the place, and moody, and gossipy, and bitchy, and sort of shrewish and hysterical sometimes, and that’s — oh, and also obsessed with hair care, and that’s the male candidate.”
Helga