Mass Hysteria Warps Our Culture

The importance of gender differences to the survival of our species is writ large in the symmetry of gender distribution: Almost exactly half of all births are either male or female. There are slightly more male births, a numerical advantage that is pruned back by a higher occurrence of male mortality. In the aggregate, the genders are complementary – their peculiar differences interweave to create a more stable and enduring social fabric, a more life-enhancing civil society.

Errors and deviations in fetal development do occur. Homosexuals, for example, have no gender complements. From a species-survival perspective, homosexuality is utterly pointless. This fact is writ large in the lopsided gender distribution of homosexuals, eighty percent of whom are male. Gays collectively are only 2% of the human population. Lesbians are a mere 0.4% of humanity. Homosexuals are a wildly non-standard byproduct of heterosexual activity. Their peculiar psychologies do not concern us here.

Normal Humans

Gender hardwiring begins at about the eighth week of fetal development, when the brains of males and females are exposed to the first significant doses of their dominant sex hormones. The effects are different and formative. Testosterone prunes away connections in the communication centers of the brain. Estrogen, by contrast, enhances these connections and also regions of the brain that service language facility and the expression of emotions. Estrogen is an empathy enhancer. These differences incline the genders differently. There is a biological basis for the fact that men speak about 7,000 words a day and women speak about 20,000 words a day.

At the beginning of their teenage years, boys and girls show little difference in their mathematical and scientific aptitudes, but as the genders experience the second significant surge of their respective sex hormones, females start to focus intensely on their emotions and on communication. Boys, by contrast, grow less communicative and more interested in sex and competition. Each gender begins to make value decisions shaped by hormonal effects. When women in large numbers shun scientific careers it is because they imagine those careers to be too solitary, not because of their lack of intellectual ability. Girls tend to choose nonscientific careers because their female brains crave connection and communication.

Women’s brains are wired to recall and feel emotions more keenly than are the brains of men. “The wiring of emotional experience and the coding of that experience into memory is much more tightly integrated in women than in men,” declared Turhan Cauli, assistant professor of psychology at the State University of New York, Stony Brook and the lead author of the study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, wherein scientists employed MRI imaging to visualize the neural responses of men and women to evocative images. The study demonstrated that women’s neural responses to emotional images were much more vivid than the male responses.

Likewise, a team of psychologists tested groups of women and men for their ability to recall or recognize highly evocative photographs three weeks after first seeing them and found that the women’s recollections were up to 15 percentage points more accurate. An equal number of men and women were shown 96 pictures, which ranged from 0-3 in emotional intensity. Three weeks later, they were shown the same images, along with 48 more and asked to recall which pictures they had seen before. Their exposure to each image was less than three seconds.

Women remembered a larger percentage of the emotional images they had seen weeks before – scenes of people crying or gravestones or dead bodies, even a dirty toilet. The image of a gun, which men rated as neutral, evoked strong negative emotions in women. These findings confirm earlier research, said Diane F. Halpern, director of the Berger Institute for Work, Family and Children and a professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College in California. She said that research had confirmed the matrimonial lore that wives have truer memories of spats than do husbands. The actual saying is more blunt: “Husbands never remember arguments and wives never forget.” As many a mother has remarked, “Boys move on, but girls carry grudges.”

This study confirmed that women have a better autobiographical memory for anything, not just emotional events, which may contribute to their much higher rate of clinical depression. Keen emotional memories fuel dark ruminations.

Female Cruelty

The latest buzzword in the sociology of female adolescence is “relational aggression,” a hot topic which has spawned a troop of interveners who seek to quell this nasty aspect of young womanhood. There are now workshops to address the female propensity to tease, gossip maliciously, play cruel games on their best friends and establish exclusive cliques and high school hierarchies.

Female-against-female aggression is as old as Sarah banishing Hagar. Given their heightened sensitivity to emotional experience, it makes sense that females would choose to hurt one another using social dynamics. Tellingly, it has taken five decades of modern feminism for women to assess female aggression honestly – the shunning and overt hostility so brilliantly visited on girls who were odd or awkward or “different” or challenging. This phenomenon has finally been analyzed and given a place in the textbooks and found a place on the bestseller list. After a decade of putting all their energy into focusing on aggression toward women by men, the feminists have finally awakened to the hidden culture of female-on-female hostility.

“We used to blame men for everything,” said Phyllis Chesler, a psychologist and author of Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. “Then we said, ‘Gee, some of my most painful betrayals have been by women.”

“The good thing is that people are looking at girls, who’ve been ignored for so long,” said Lori Lefkovitz, academic director of Kolot, the Center for Jewish Women’s and Gender Studies in Wyncote, Pennsylvania. “By attending to girls, we’re noticing everything.”

What has been made certain is that the female brain and the female psyche that emerges from that brain are not wellsprings of moral superiority.

A Few Words About Hysteria

Over the last fifty years the word “hysteria” has been spoken less and less. Its meaning seems murky and much too entangled with Sigmund Freud’s analyses of his patient Anna O. It has been a 2000-year-old diagnosis of saints and witches and feminists of the 1960s did their best to stamp it out. It fell into invisibility, but it never truly vanished. The topic became socially toxic and brain scientists ignored it.

Functional neuro-imaging technologies like single photon emission computerized tomography, or SPECT, and positron emission tomography, or PET, now enable scientists to monitor changes in brain activity. Although the brain mechanisms behind hysterical illness are not fully understood, new studies are bringing the mind back into the body by identifying the physical evidence of the most elusive and controversial of illnesses. Only its name has changed. In the 1980 edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the diagnosis of “hysterical neurosis, conversion type” was officially changed to “conversion disorder.”

“Hysteria, to me, has always been a pejorative term, because of its association with women,” said Dr. William E. Narrow, associate director of the research division of the American Psychiatric Association. “I think the fact we got rid of that word is a good thing.” The modern APA prides itself on its political correctness.

Other synonyms for hysteria are “non-organic,” “psychogenic” and “medically unexplained.” Even as the nomenclature changes, the disorder remains the same. Hysterics all share two things in common: they are not “faking it” and doctors can’t find anything medically wrong with them. By some estimates, patients with medically unexplained complaints may account for as many as 40% of primary care consultations. The narrower diagnosis of conversion disorder may be as many as 4% of all diagnoses in Western hospitals, with many patients showing numerous symptoms such as impairment of voluntary motor functions, blindness, seizures or paralysis.

The word hysteria derives from the Greek word for uterus. Ancient doctors had attributed a number of female maladies to a starved or misplaced womb. In the 19th Century, the French neurologists Pierre Janet and Jean-Martin Charcot laid the foundation for modern insights into this disorder. It remained for Charcot’s student, the young neurologist Sigmund Freud to explain why hysterics swooned and seized. He coined the term “conversion” to describe the mechanism by which unresolved, unconscious conflict might be transformed into symbolic physical symptoms. His fundamental insight – that the body might be playing out dramas of the mind – has yet to be supplanted. Freud reversed the direction of causality. He understood that the cases on his couch in Vienna were about something in the psyche being expressed in the body.

Hysteria in America

In the fall of 2001 more than two dozen elementary and middle schools across America suddenly witnessed an outbreak of itchy red rashes that faded away when the children went home. The children had no other symptoms, no fever, no headaches, and no respiratory complaints. Also, they did not pass the rash to anyone outside school – not to parents or siblings. Groups of up to several dozen came down with the rash simultaneously or within hours, as opposed to days or weeks that is usual for person-to-person contagion. There was the curious fact that a distinct majority of the cases involved girls. Neither germs nor environmental toxins discriminate on the basis of sex. The media soon dubbed it “the mystery rash.”

Bob Hartwig, the principal of Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Medford, Oregon, recalls the morning of February 4th, 2001 when a group of nine or ten second-grade girls from the same classroom reported to the office. He said they looked flush and miserable. In the following days more kids came to the office with patches of red or dry skin.

The county’s health investigation was coordinated by public health nurse Yvonne H. Chilcoat, who recalled the odd fact that the people who interviewed the children reported seeing “the rash sort of evolve before their eyes.” “It would be there, and then you could actually see it fade away or reappear somewhere else on the body.” Also very strange was the fact that of the 67 children and 11 adults affected by the rash a whopping 62 were female (79.5%). Principal Hartwig kept the school open. His worry was mixed with bafflement. “I kept asking myself: Why us? Why, Medford, Oregon? Why girls? At one point, we were one-hundred-percent girls.” Why did the rash go away so quickly when the kids stopped talking about it?

Hartwig entertained the thought that the rashes might be psychological in origin. He recalled an incident he had experienced in 1984 when a teacher complained that a grounds keeper was spraying a pesticide outside her classroom window and that it was poisoning her and the children. The teacher fell ill and soon many children in the classroom were nauseated; a few were vomiting. “But they weren’t spraying anything toxic outside,” Hartwig said. “All I had to do was tell the kids in that classroom that nothing was going on, and it stopped.”

The public health coordinator in Oregon exchanged notes with Heather Hague, a public health nurse in St. Catherine’s in Ontario who had investigated a rash outbreak in an elementary school and had concluded that it was most probably “hysterical.” Ms. Hague confirmed this but added that it was a conclusion she did not share with parents or children. “People seem to deal better with concrete facts,” she opined, “and you sort of don’t want to go there. You really don’t like to cast that shadow.” The experiences of the two schools were strikingly similar: the rash appeared abruptly and affected mainly girls. One female student remembered thinking about anthrax: “It was scary because maybe the anthrax got into our school, and then somebody touched it, and then if you touched that person you’d get it. It was scary because you didn’t know what the rash was or where it came from.”

She and her friends explored more frightening possibilities. She and a classmate thought they had seen more tree frogs that sometimes get into the school through the drains. How strange was that? A fifth grade friend had eaten a “yucky” hamburger in the cafeteria and offered that the rash might be “mad cow disease.” When asked if sympathy might be playing a role in the spread of the mystery rash, a student responded, “Totally, it’s kind of like when somebody next to you is scratching their head and you get itchy.” She added that when she got the rash, “a kid tried to rub up against me because they were jealous that I had it and they didn’t.”

In instances of relational aggression (as explained earlier) girls would point at other girls they didn’t like and say, “You’ve got it! You’ve got it!” “So that girl would essentially get quarantined,” said Leslie Davidoff, a resident in preventive medicine who interviewed these kids.

In Pennsylvania, a dermatologist named Norman Sykes speculated that there might be a new mutant virus going around, but he was at a loss to explain why this mutant virus was not being passed along to family members and why such a large majority of the complainants were female. Health officials were reluctant to suggest that the problem might be psychogenic and that the agent of contagion might be anxiety – the suspicion that people around you are falling ill to some noxious substance.

Talking honestly about hysteria is a fraught pursuit because the diagnosis carries with it so many pejorative associations. It is imagined to be the stuff of the Salem witch trials, where the accusers were young girls not so different from the daughters of today’s young professionals. Because of the reluctance to speak openly about the not-so-rare documented occurrences of mass hysteria outbreaks, these outbreaks remain hidden. Between 1973 and 1993, there were 70 reports of mass hysteria in medical journals, most of them in contained environments, such as schools and factories.

Some element of unusual psychological stress is often present, which may explain why several documented cases in schools happened while students were preparing for standardized tests. Adolescents and preadolescents are the most susceptible and girls are far more susceptible than boys. The striking consistency of this gender difference is not an artifact of misogynistic bias, but an organic expression of the female brain. Women are more communicative and empathetic and therefore more likely to talk about their symptoms and share their fears and feelings. Social relationships determine the spread of psychogenic symptoms; sympathy is their driving force. Females have a heightened propensity to talk among themselves about their health and are more likely than males to seek medical attention. This is well documented.

Most cases of epidemic hysteria are characterized by symptoms like nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness and lightheadedness – all of which are produced and enhanced by anxiety and hyperventilation. Epidemic psychogenic outbreaks may begin with one genuinely ill person, setting in motion a wave of sympathetic illness. For example, in 1989, 63 children at a day camp in Florida complained of abdominal cramps and nausea, seventy-five percent of them girls. All of them became ill within 2 to 40 minutes after eating a pre-packaged lunch. Investigators learned that this outbreak started with one 12-year-old girl who complained that the lunch tasted bad and then vomited. She was probably infected when she arrived that morning. Food samples were free of bacteria, chemical contamination or heavy metals. The Florida Department of Health concluded that this was a case of “mass sociogenic illness.”

Most psychogenic disorders are mild and transient, sometimes vanishing within hours. So, in a sensible world you might think a diagnosis that was free of bacteria, viral agents and chemical toxins would come as a relief to parents. Well, we don’t live in such a world. For example, in 2000 allergist Robert J. Settipane, who had examined children at an elementary school in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, concluded that rashes that were presenting were psychogenic in origin and probably the consequence of heightened anxiety then being shared by mostly fourth-grade girls who were then struggling with a challenging math book and upcoming standardized math tests. When he announced his conclusion, “the parents were irate,” he recalled. “How could I say their children were hysterical? This was an affluent school, a very involved group of parents. They could not accept even considering this. I was persona non grata.

Some parents convinced themselves that there must be an environmental contaminant; they suspected that their children were allergic to the math textbooks, so other allergists dutifully shredded math textbooks and performed skin tests. These tests were all negative.

A few zealots emerged. “They stirred it up continuously,” Settipane recalled, “and it became a matter of, ‘Are we taking our kids seriously?’” At that point Settipane believed that he had to be blunt with these parents, so he cast diplomacy to the wind and said out loud that nine-year-old girls were susceptible to magical thinking and that ‘this was the same demographic that had started the Salem witch scare.” His history lesson was not well received. Some parents suspected a cover-up; some resented the suggestion that their kids were “messed up psychologically.”

In other areas of life these same parents were celebrating the notion of a mind-body connection – they were enthusiasts of yoga; they believed that stress reduction improved physical health; they practiced meditation and the power of positive thinking and they believed in the placebo effect. But when it came to psychosomatic illness they all grabbed their pitchforks and torches and wanted to pillory this one honest allergist. Rather than seeing an outbreak of sympathy reactions to other people in physical distress as a touching phenomenon, the parents took it as distressing evidence that their children were impressionable and not “above all that.”

But sympathy and empathy are hallmarks of emotional beings and girls, as a group, are especially emotional beings. From before birth, and again at puberty, the emotion and communication centers of their brains have been nourished and encouraged and well-watered with estrogen. Their emotion-managing neural nets are lush gardens compared to the semi-arid neural landscapes of their male classmates, brothers and boyfriends.

The Dawn of a New Hysteria

As Election Day deepened onto night and returns from precincts west of the Hudson River began to trickle in, the mood inside New York’s cavernous Jacob Javits Center began to darken. The early returns had been comforting, they had comported exactly with the predictions of dozens of liberal pundits. But as citizens west of the Hudson cast their votes it became ever more apparent that America’s coastal liberals were wildly out of step with the working-class and poor people in America’s heartland. Hurting Americans were pushing back against Hillary Clinton, this year’s quintessential machine politician.

This unexpected splash of reality sent Hillary’s acolytes into a tailspin. Many of them had never known an America that was not being schoolmarmed by Barack Obama. As the evening wore on, the crowd at the Javits Center lapsed from somber to despairing and their candidate retreated into seclusion. It fell to John Podesta to go out there and buck up the faithful with lots of false hope. The Clinton team were relieved that they had hastily cancelled a stupendous fireworks extravaganza on the East River that would have lit up all of Manhattan.

The Democratic Party losses were historic. Not since Reconstruction in the 1870s had the Democrats been in such disarray. The election revealed the Democrats to be a mere coastal party, not a national party. Donald Trump had won the majority of Electoral College votes because he was the candidate with the broadest national appeal. The geniuses who designed the Electoral College system intended for it to ensure that the winner of a national election would be the candidate with the broadest national appeal and not just someone who appealed to a few populous regional cultures.

America’s voters had dealt the Democrats a stunning beatback: Republicans now controlled more than three-fifths of all state legislatures and Obama’s presidency would end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer seats in the Senate and more than 60 fewer seats in the House, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than on the day Obama was inaugurated. This election guaranteed the G.O.P. the governor’s offices in 33 states – its most bountiful harvest since 1922.

All of this came as a harsh awakening to privileged Millenials who have no memories of any president other than Barack Hussein Obama. Their teachers had always sung the praises of Obama’s radical-left social agenda; these kids had been marinated in Obama’s “social justice” agenda that encouraged heightened racial identity for everyone except white people. Most of these privileged youngsters didn’t know even one working-class white person or any poor person of any race. So it came as a shock when Hillary Clinton was revealed to be the candidate with the least national appeal. She was just the favorite candidate of lots of liberals who don’t believe that they are bigots because they all share the same unquestioned assumptions about religious people and conservatives and working-class white people.

Mrs. Clinton flopped because she lost a big chunk of the Obama coalition. Compared to 2012 she dropped 1.8 million African-Americans, one million voters aged 18 to 29, 1.8 million voters aged 30 to 44, 2.6 million Catholics and almost 4.5 million voters with family incomes of $30,000 or less. She won fewer than 500 counties as Donald Trump won two thousand six hundred counties. This sweeping defeat happened because the Democrats stupidly neglected the 80-year-old constituency that had been the backbone of the party from FDR to Bill Clinton. The Democrats’ reliance on wealthy donors on the two coasts, who were fixated on cultural liberalism rather than a robust economy, had left their party alienated from working-class Americans. Millions of Americans who were struggling to put food on their tables and keep a roof over their heads simply turned their backs on a political party that spent its political capital on ensuring that gender-confused cross-dressing males could intrude on authentic women in public restrooms.

Political Hysteria Runs Wild

On the Saturday following the Tuesday election, thousands of the disgruntled walked the two miles up Fifth Avenue from New York’s Union Square to Trump Tower. This followed other rallies in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland Oregon where the sore losers vandalized hundreds of automobiles, smashed in storefronts and indulged in random acts of arson. The very fact that they were protesting the results of a free and democratic election was proof beyond measure of their anti-democratic inclinations.

It was just a primal scream. It was a tantrum. The closest thing to a unifying theme was “Fuck,” as in Fuck Trump and Fuck Giuliani and Fuck the Police and Fuck the Electoral College System and Fuck Newt Gingrich and Fuck Sheriff Arpaio and Fuck Trump’s Amerikkka. Some marchers derided “Adolf Trump” because the Hitler meme never grows old among the nostalgia-driven red-diaper babies who still walk among us, the withered remnants of Jurassic socialism. There were lots of flags – rainbow, Puerto Rican, anarchist, Socialist Alternative and Mexican. There were also joyously desecrated American flags.

Graying radicals sporting SDS buttons chatted with younger would-be revolutionaries while Revolutionary Communist Party trolls handed out fliers. It was all about personal catharsis. It attracted reporters. It entertained some tourists.

Meanwhile, on America’s college campuses, some of America’s most sheltered and privileged youngsters were lapsing into collective hysteria; lots of liberal young women and their soft-palmed male imitators were losing all composure, not to mention all dignity.

Despite her many flaws and failings, lots of earnest liberals were convinced that the real reason Hillary Clinton was roundly rejected for the top job was because she was a woman.

The tactic of smearing all of Hillary’s critics as misogynists had several advantages: it absolved Hillary Clinton of any responsibility whatsoever for America’s historic rejection of her and it simultaneously slimed every Trump voter as a woman-hating bigot. It was both an absolution and a slashing ad hominem attack! It was also a rallying cry to every socially awkward and emotionally insecure woman in America to join Hillary in a sisterhood of self-identifying victims. It would be a big group hug with thousands of women extravagantly wallowing in their imaginary victimization at the hands of “a basket of deplorables,” as Hillary notoriously mischaracterized half of America’s citizens.

Cornell University employees handed out blankets and tissues and hot chocolate as students signed their names to a poster that declared “Donald Trump is not my president.” Standing with students at the cry-in and on the verge of tears herself was campus activities coordinator Denice Cassaro, who called the election results “devastating.” “I have no words,” she lamented.

The day after the election, Tufts University held a “self care” event. The University of Kansas used social media to alert students that therapy dogs were available to comfort them every other Wednesday.

“People are frustrated, people are just really sad and shocked,” said Trey Boynton, director of multi-ethnic student affairs at the University of Michigan. “We talked about grief today and about the loss of hope that this election would solidify the progress that was being made.” There was a non-stop flow of students into Ms. Boynton’s office. They spent the day playing with Play Doh and calming themselves with crayons and coloring books.

Insanely, the presidential election had been re-imagined as a referendum on female worthiness. Millions of women brought their biographical baggage to the presidential contest. As the liberal New York Times informed us:

“Mothers, grandmothers and daughters drove long distances to cast their ballots together, taking selfies outside and posting them. They wore rings in honor of long-dead ancestors. They dusted off mothballed pantsuits from another era, trading stories and rooting for one another on the viral Facebook group Pantsuit Nation, nearly three million strong in just a couple of weeks of life.”

At Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton’s alma mater, alumnae from across America came streaming onto campus wearing “Hillary” T-shirts, for the gigantic hen party to watch the election returns collectively.

“We are all nerves,” quivered Michalina Lerska, a first year student, to the New York Times.

Marjorie Cohen, 67, told the Times that she woke up on Election Day with fear in her heart. “I think Canada is busy building a wall because we’re all going to want to flee,” she opined of a possible Trump victory.

The Times doted on two 74-year-old women, one of whom said she voted as if all the women in her family, living and dead, were alongside her. The other woman wore a red shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Pantsuit Up” and became disgruntled when a police officer told her to remove all her vintage campaign buttons from 2008.

For millions of super-sensitive and highly suggestible people who are uncomfortable with contradiction of any sort, the Election Night results of 2016 seemed like an existential threat. They were a moody and deeply emotional collective who were primed for a collective expression of mass hysteria. When the media announced that Hillary Clinton had lost presidential election because she had no appeal to millions of struggling working-class and poor people, the delicate darlings of America’s privileged upper crust had a collective emotional breakdown.

Hysteria as a Political Weapon

Fear was the dominant emotion among Hillary’s dejected followers. “I’m afraid as a woman,” said Kimberly Landgrover, 25, of Queens, New York. “I’m really, really scared,” lamented Stacy Mitgang, 53, of Pennsylvania. “We all feel defeated, but my biggest emotion is fear. I’m afraid. I fear what will happen.”

This was not a happenstance. The fomenting of panic is a shopworn Democrat political device with a long history. For example, in the waning hours of the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore’s hopes for a win hung on the Florida vote count, he grew desperate for a recount in selected precincts where he might pick up a winning margin. To get this recount started, Al Gore needed a judicial intervention – an order from a court to initiate a recount. To precipitate such an intervention, Al Gore ordered his campaign lieutenants to employ a company in Texas that specialized in “push polling.” Push polling is the dark art of cold-calling voters under the pretense of garnering their opinions, but with the hidden purpose of implanting an idea in their minds.

At Al Gore’s behest these bogus pollsters telephoned thousands of elderly registered Democrat voters in Florida and asked them if they might have “accidently” voted for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan because of a confusingly designed ballot form. (This form had been designed by Democrats.) When some of these confused and distraught elderly voters contacted their congressmen with expressions of distress, Al Gore exploited his self-generated wave of “voter concern” as a device to enlist a friendly jurist to demand a selective recount in just those precincts where Al Gore felt most confident that he might increase his vote count.

In 2016 the foot soldiers of the Left are encouraging youngsters and the politically naïve and the emotionally insecure to come together and share their worst fears. These agents of the Left include every scribbler and every talking head in the liberal media and every left-leaning schoolmarm in America who nurtured the worst irrational fears of their students and who made the mere man Donald Trump “The Big White Boogeyman.”

The final irony is that Hillary’s big smackdown came at the hands of millions of women who were convinced that Hillary was not the human most likely to promote their best interests. White women overall voted for Donald Trump by an impressive margin and white women without college degrees broke even more decisively for the Republican. Mrs. Clinton won a smaller share of the overall female electorate than Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

During her 2008 attempt to win the presidency, Mrs. Clinton had downplayed her gender. In the 2016 campaign she portrayed herself as a mom and a grandma and the first female nominee of a major political party. She encouraged female group identity. She talked incessantly about that last and hardest glass ceiling. She became an avatar of female aspiration and victimhood. But when the results of a focus-group evaluation by veteran pollster Mandy Grunwald were released, it was revealed that of all female Democrat candidates, only Hillary was viewed as a man.

For all her pretense to being an authentic woman, Hillary’s reflexively shrill and strident manner and her penchant for cross dressing in unflattering iridescent lime green pantsuits had withered America’s perception of her as a woman like other women.

Hillary’s long-time admirer, Andrea Mitchell, of NBC News, was stunned and dismayed: “People don’t like her! You know, she’s . . . That’s what they’re saying! ‘Your candidate is not relatable,’ and what made them all upset is that all of her focus groups showed that people related to Hillary Clinton as a man!” Ms. Mitchell added that, “They did not see the humanity in her.” In other words, because she was seen as a man she was therefore also seen as not fully human.

Hillary had spent all of her on-camera time stigmatizing her opponent as a knuckle-dragging mere man – a less evolved life form than herself, only to be perceived as a man herself. Average people called her Shrillary. She was abrasive. Her meager efforts to appear feminine seemed forced. Since she is obviously not a man, we must conclude that millions of voters imagined Hillary Clinton to be either a male impersonator or a female impersonator. Either way, they believed her to be an impostor, a pretender to authentic womanhood. This does not bode badly for future female candidates who do not imitate her bad example.


When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, not a single conservative requested cancelled midterms, safe spaces, a crying room or group primal screams. Conservatism is the triumph of experience over magical thinking. The mass hysteria exhibited by liberals is the fruit of lifetimes cushioned with participation trophies and undeserved school grades. Ignorance also plays a role: not a single one of America’s top 50 colleges requires even one semester of Western Civilization. Note to Millenials: America is not a mobocracy. Sheer force of numbers does not decide every issue here; the fact that Hillary garnered more popular votes is nice for her – that is her participation trophy.

Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes which unnerved Hillary’s acolytes who had stereotyped and stigmatized all Trump voters as an uncouth rabble of backward homophobes, Islamophobes, racists and woman haters. Celinda Lake, a Democrat pollster, said her party had expected “a surge of women” to support Mrs. Clinton, but that did not happen. Ms. Lake added that, “Trump won very solidly the white women’s vote and we know that was fed by white, blue-collar women.” Many of Trump’s female supporters said they had simply stopped talking politics with Democrat women friends for fear of damaging sisterly bonds.

Meanwhile, the liberal media, both print and electronic, lost all credibility. None of them were prepared for a Trump victory; they were uniformly convinced that Hillary would win in a landslide. The clueless liberals at Newsweek magazine had rushed 125,000 copies of its “Madame President” issue to newsstands on Election Day, well before the final vote count. Retailers were told to hold them until the inevitable Hillary landslide later that night, but the Barnes & Noble on Union Square in Manhattan was selling the Madame President issue on Tuesday. It was a classic example of blinkered liberal hubris. An embarrassed Newsweek management had to beg back every comically delusional issue packed with liberal magical thinking.

The liberal media talking heads had a collective midnight meltdown, as exemplified by MSNBC’s tough-guy lesbian pundit Rachel Maddow, who helpfully explained to her über-Left viewers that they were not really lost in a “terrible, terrible dream” and that they had not really died and “gone to Hell.”

While this chorus of lamentation was packaged as commiseration, its real purpose was incitement – the propagation of fear for political purposes. The purpose was to incite mass hysteria – it was the Salem witch trials tricked out as political analysis with Mr. Trump cast in the role of Satan. He was their ultimate boogeyman, the sum of all their fears. To countless not-yet-fully-formed and socially insecure young females he was that most frightening of all specters – he was a Man.

Thomas Clough
Copyright 2016
December 10, 2016