Late last year, Time Magazine was forced to apologize for including “feminist” in a poll of which word readers wanted to ban. Competing against such literary luminaries as “bae” (somehow a term of endearment for a significant other or “awesome” when applied to regular nouns), “kale” (an overhyped “superfood”), “literally” (literally the most regularly misapplied word after “like”) and “yaaasssss” (for humans who descend from snakes, probably), “feminist” won by a relative landslide, receiving 51% of the votes.
How often, aside from crooked West African or Uzbek elections, does one candidate amongst a field of 15 win a majority in the first round, especially in a nationwide, moderately leftwing publication?
Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media failed to cover this story like other news about feminism, relegating Time editor Nancy Gibb’s mea culpa to a relative non-event. Although CNN and a few other major outlets did cover it, it wasn’t a major headline. Why? Because it exposes two things: a) eternal attempts at feminist cultural indoctrination have failed and b) the public, even those reading a mainstream, run-of-the-mill, leftist-focused publication, sense that feminism is about supremacy, not equality.
To boot, it is extensively appropriated by the highest female echelons of society to cloak themselves in victimhood, despite them usually being born into privileged families (Lena Dunham), marrying powerful men (Michelle Obama) or sexualizing themselves silly (Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, and Ariana Grande).
The silent majority
The term “silent majority” has received constant criticism because of its association with Richard Nixon. Yet it describes a reality that continues to reverberate in both American and broader Western society. In this sense, whatever you have to say about Watergate, Nixon presciently addressed the relegation and vilification of a huge chunk of the American public.
Everyday people back then, like now, were harangued and looked down upon for questioning the turpitude of activists in the 1960s (replaced by SJWs in 2015), or simply denying that a phenomenally wealthy family like the Kennedys, or other rich Democratic do-gooders and celebrities, should be their moral and political beacon.
The Time voters who chose “feminist” are an exemplary example of this silent majority because they’re reading a leftist publication. As the editor’s backdown proves, the media is much more liberal than conservative, libertarian, or traditionalist. Bias from television, newspaper and online news need not only be about twisting a particular story, but rather also incorporates the range and sorts of stories that are covered in the first place.
Consequently, when you combine the media world with the universe of celebrities, huge swathes of the population are left to selectively pick enjoyment from the cultural status quo, whilst quietly repudiating many of the “causes” and “messages” shoved down their throats.
Feminist for fun (and profit)
Nowadays, the mainstream media accosts us with quotidian stories about mega-wealthy female celebrities branding themselves as “feminists” and calling out the so-called male privilege of $50,000-a-year men wherever it lurks in the recesses of their (the celebrities’) minds.
The word feminist is not just overused; it is a caricature routinely employed by the privileged 1% themselves to garner attention and deflect any focus on their own inexplicable fortunes. It is a philosophy (if you can even call it that) perennially uprooted from reality and any semblance of proportionality.
Beyond celebrity feminism itself, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Co. earn $10-20 million per film, only to have the audacity to say that the system takes advantage of the poor. Instead of demanding behind the scenes (i.e. without glorifying themselves) that studio executives cut the pay checks of stars and significantly up the income of the assistants and stage workers, they take every opportunity to maintain their personal profile by calling for socialism.
The objective? To maximize their market value and attendant fame.
Is the cultural indoctrination working?
Time is a frequently informative publication, believe it or not. I acknowledge that many of the regular topics (including in recent years scribes lauding undesirable “personalities” such as Ellen Pao and Anita Sarkeesian) are slanted well to the left. But these are very often opinion pieces.
Though many opinion pieces masquerade as narrowly focused “news” stories, many other covers and columns do broaden your outlook, expand your knowledge base, and help you to link complex events and trends around the world. What’s more is that the publication exposes you to the sleight of hand tricks and other techniques employed by the left to stoke the emotions of many in the public.
The quagmire faced by the left and their recurring SJW allies is that liberal domination of the media, protected and reaffirmed by considerable “journalistic”, “activist” and other efforts, has not translated into the public constantly approving feminism. Run-of-the-mill folks may not be willing to stand up openly.
However, they can vote at the ballot box, use their computer mouse and, as the Tea Party and other (positively) reactionary groups show, rally with likeminded people when the right opportunities present themselves.
What scares liberals and SJWs more than the truth is the fear that the public isn’t buying their distortion of it.