June 30th, 2010

Obama is a girly man

I didn’t say it—Kathleen Parker did.

And she thinks it may not be a bad thing:

It isn’t that [Obama] isn’t “cowboy” enough, as others have suggested. Aren’t we done with that? It is that his approach is feminine in a normative sense…Obama displays many tropes of femaleness. I say this in the nicest possible way. I don’t think that doing things a woman’s way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement.

Funny thing, though—Parker doesn’t give many details about her basis for calling Obama womanish, although she does offer the idea that he’s used the passive voice a lot in his recent speeches, and also:

Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

(Parker links to research that’s supposedly about this, but all I could find at the link was a fairly interesting (but irrelevant) article about the differences in how men and women navigate spatially and give directions.)

What’s more, Parker fails to differentiate between actually working to achieve compromise, and pretending to be a coalition builder while effectively shutting out and demonizing the opposition, as Obama has done. In addition, anyone who asserts, as Parker seems to, that women don’t “measure themselves” against other women (or even against men) has just not been paying attention.

It’s a funny thing, too, that a great many women in public life today appear more macho than many of the men, and yet they have retained their femininity at the same time. I think, of course, of Sarah Palin or Arizona Governor Brewer. Decisiveness and clarity, as well as the ability to compromise, are neither masculine nor feminine traits. But a good leader—and a good president—must exhibit the real deals, and not just rhetorical simulacrums thereof.

73 Responses to “Obama is a girly man”

  1. Baklava Says:

    I found Kathleen’s non-measured approach and attack on Palin to be distasteful.

    Not because they were truthful attacks…. but irrelevant and mean spirited and attacks with no basis in fact.

    Coalition builder. Far from it. Kathleen is a nuanced oppressor of truth…

  2. Baklava Says:

    Yes, Jan Brewer IS a good leader. Palin would’ve lead very well.

    Kathleen isn’t a good listener – nor is Obama a good leader.

  3. Sergey Says:

    For Kathleen Parker (and for a lot of other women, too) politics is all about style and appearances, not about actual results. This tendency makes me sometimes seriously doubt the wisdom of granting voting rights to women. Ever seen documentals about women cheering Hitler at mass meetings? They were exited to the point of experiencing orgasm at mere seeing him.

  4. stumbley Says:

    although she does offer the idea that he’s used the passive voice a lot in his recent speeches

    I’m still astounded that anyone thinks that the Big O™ has anything whatever to do with his speeches other than read them. If he does, then he’s woefully ignorant of facts and history, and far from the brilliant genius the media wants to portray him to be.

  5. Steve Says:

    If Clinton was our first black president and Obama is our first female president, maybe Palin or Hillary will be our next president :) Personally I think we need a first fiscally responsible president.

  6. gcotharn Says:

    re macho public women who remain attractive; re decisiveness, clarity, effective political negotiation:

    Decisiveness is a talent. Clarity is a talent. Effective political negotiation is a talent. Talent is attractive – maybe even more attractive than power.

    Obama had the talent to gain office.

    The talent to govern is far more attractive.

  7. PCachu Says:

    “…suggests an evolutionary achievement.”

    Well, so much for the dawning realization of Obama As Mere Mortal. Now it’s Obama As Next Forward Step For Our Species? Sweet Zarquon, I thought we’d left this sort of slavering, worshipful hyperbole behind by now.

  8. Adrian Day Says:

    “Women form circles and talk it out” My wifes side of the family is all women and I’ve never witness anything of the sort. They bicker and undercut one another more than any men I know.

    Obama may well be in touch with his feminine side. It explains a lot about his low score on the international stage with foreign powers. Hillary has more balls.

  9. Mr. Frank Says:

    Obama is a big wuss, and men sense it. That’s one reason he polls so badly among men.

    One very small example is the administration response to the Russian spies just arrested. They said it would have no effect on our relationship with Russia. That’s not a male response.

    Would Obama retaliate heavily to the bombing of one American city. It’s doubtful.

    The Iranians, Syrians, and North Koreans have him figured out.

  10. Occam's Beard Says:

    I don’t think that doing things a woman’s way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement.

    She’s never heard of neoteny, I take it. And she is similarly, blissfully, unaware that all embryos begin as female and some differentiate into males under the influence of testosterone, which reverses the sense of her thought, if you’ll pardon the exaggeration.

    Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

    Kathleen, please form a circle with the Taliban and talk it out. Please. Start building those coalitions.

    A plea: will the distaff contributors on neo-neocon please weigh in with their characteristically sensible commentary? I’m starting to have doubts about the 19th amendment again.

  11. Occam's Beard Says:

    Women tend to be coalition builders

    Coalition, clique, what’s in a word?

  12. Occam's Beard Says:

    Back when Stonehenge was in the planning stages feminists at Berkeley (and presumably elsewhere) used to maintain that if women ran the world there would be no wars.

    The first three female prime ministers were Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi.

  13. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    In general, the idea that women have this alternate way of working out conflicts and getting work done, which is just as good or even better, has little evidentiary basis. Leadership styles differ, and in every culture women and men have different things they can get away with, but essentially, leadership is leadership is leadership.

    Something else is happening behind this claim which is obscured by the supposed male-female division. A certain tribe of North Americans (and Western Europe) believes that talking things out and negotiating is not merely one strategy, but the overwhelmingly best strategy in all conflict or need to structure work and give orders. I call them the Arts and Humanities tribe, but you may see that differently. Women in that tribe have done quite well achieving parity of power with the men of that tribe. The group is disproportionately liberal, thus as this group gains ascendancy, so do its women.

    Women of this tribe have a large stake in that tribe doing well, as it is their avenue to power and status. They don’t care about women’s authority in general, but only within the context of their women. Women who gain power in other ways are a double threat to their status. And they hate them. They therefore sell the idea that the women of their class are the only “real” women, and the way they do things is the natural women’s way.

  14. strcpy Says:

    So, how about we define “feminine” as being clingy and needful of others approval and addressing problems by whining about them. Then we can point to some women came out and did things a Man’s way by not caring what others thought and simply fixed the problems – it is the next evolutionary step!

    Or, we could all realize that both both her point of view and what I wrote above are utter garbage and shouldn’t even get a quote done by anyone. Sadly there are people out there that firmly believe both of those things.

    Last I checked there are aggressive and passives on both genders of the species. Further I even hear that the almost totally male run govt we have created a few committees here and there (not sure on that one though). I’ve even heard tell that women consciously compare themselves to others in both looks, dress, and other aspect from time to time, indeed I even hear in some places we have these things called “clothes stores” and “Beauty Shops” that cater to that point of view, though I have never seen one.

    Of course gender based politics are similar to race based ones – those people are not grounded in rational thought to begin with so no reason to figure their ideas are rational either. They take anything they see as positive, ascribe it to themselves and ascribe everything bad to others. It doesn’t matter how untrue it obviously is as it isn’t founded in reality anyway.

  15. Oldflyer Says:

    Maybe a woman running the country would be a good thing. If the electorate want to try that, we should elect a woman. If we are lucky we will get a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir

    On the other hand, let us not go there with this “girly-man” theme.

    In a way I feel sorry for Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, and all of the others who have to produce clever commentary on a frequently recurring basis. It is clearly beyond their competence, yet they strive on. Though they touch my heart, the depth of my feeling is very shallow. They, after all, could get honest jobs. For instance, there will always be a need for sewer workers.

  16. David Avera Says:

    This theory also explains Obama’s inability to throw a baseball.

  17. PA Cat Says:

    While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

    Two-word rebuttal: Nancy Pelosi. Unless Parker really meant “talk in circles.”

  18. Artfldgr Says:

    effete liberalism

    Go ahead, search and find it all over the place from references to mien kampf, to Micheal Moore, and more…

    So, six things made the west great but now civilisation is ‘drifting’ towards suicide. In 42 years, I’ll prove that’s wrong

    There are two books entitled Suicide of the West. One was written 42 years ago and, unfortunately, its thesis proved disastrously wrong. The other is just out and hopefully will be equally misbegotten.

    James Burnham’s 1964 book contended that effete liberalism would cause the collapse of western civilisation. He envisaged an assisted suicide, with gleeful Soviets pressing a pillow into our decadent, possibly pop culture-addled, faces. His book was at least beautifully written: the Englishman described liberalism as “a swansong, a spiritual solace of the same order as the murmuring of a mother to a child who is gravely ill”. The seeming swansong, though, was a song of the sirens, luring Trabants to cross the iron curtain. Communism, not the west was doomed.

    thre is a wonderful psychological profile

    Analysis of the Personality of Adolph [sic] Hitler: With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany’s Surrender was a report prepared by Henry A. Murray for the United States Office of Strategic Services during World War II. It was one of two psychoanalytic reports prepared for the OSS on Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler; the other was The Mind of Adolf Hitler.

    Murray’s report is dated October 1943. A copy in PDF is available from the Cornell Law School library, which received a copy of the report from Murray’s family and published it online in 2004. The Cornell copy is serialized as copy number 3 of 30. The report forms a part of the law library’s Donovan Collection, which contains the papers of the legendary OSS chief William J. Donovan.

    Dr. Henry A. Murray
    Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler:
    With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions
    for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany’s Surrender

    i would draw your attention to section III
    Detailed analysis of hitlers personality
    [not for laymen]

    you have to appreciate how the whole statement of the problem starts out.

    thirty years ago, Hitler was a common bum, an unemployed non entity, a derelict of the polyglot society that was Vienna.Twenty years later, Hitler was dictator of Germany

    three years ago, at the age of 51, Hitler was the most powerful and successful individual on the earth. on the other hand, the most worshiped, on the other hand, the most despised.

    How was it possible for a man so insignificant in stature and appearance, so deficient in bodily strength and emotional control, so lacking in intellectual attainments.

    how was it possible for such a man to succeed where the mightiest Germans of the past had failed?

    What conditions in germany were conducive to his meteoric rise to power?

    you think that maybe, just maybe, when someone read the answers, they said..

    hey! we can do that again… its our blue print to bring a no one, neer do well, with no real successes to the top and forefront of a powerful nation, and let him take control (for us).

    i paraphrase below for expediency.

    they describe his physique as weak, muscles flabby, legs thin and spindly (which hitler spent time hiding in clothing). he is hollow chested, in speaking he sometimes breaks into a shrill falsetto.

    shrill is not a term you use to describe masculine.

    he was frail as a child, never labored when young.
    never played rough games. he was too weak to take construction work, and before the war was rejected by the military.

    here is a direct quote from the text
    his movements have been described as womanish – a dainty ladylike way of walking (when not assuming a military carraige in public), EFFEMINATE gesture of his arms — a peculiar gracelessness ineptitude reminiscent of a girl throwing a baseball

    a long time ago i said the parallels were striking, and there were so many.

    everyone said no, crowed at me, and really tried to get me to change my position.

    now almost 2 years later, people have learned more, and now they are coming to the conclusion that:
    the parallels are scary..

    at this rate, everything will be over before we get it
    just think of where we would be if two years ago our light came on. think of how hard it is now that it didnt come on.

    guess what? the analysis this is from is a basis for someone to learn how to repeat history. the difference is the purpose to which you put the answers that are given.

    we would use it to prevent such, they would use it as a framework to repeat such for themselves.

    so my knowing history in detail, told me exactly what they are copying and mashing together. while everyone else is trying to find the pure strain, its a hybrid of these other successful things from the past.

    how about temper tantrums?
    “just plug the hole”, and other things like that we hear from those close to him..

    hitler is a victim of temper tantrums which have increased in intensity and frequency in the last ten years. A typical seizure consists of pacing, shouting, cursing, blaming, accusations of treachery and betrayal.

    it goes on to say things that if obama did, i dont know if we would know, or if they would let him stay president! (weeping and exhibitions of self pity, falling on the floor, foaming at the mouth, and biting the carpet).

    under appearance and expressive attitudes is more of the effete thing.

    if you read mein kampf hitler himself talks about how the people are like a woman, and so on. women, who Wiemar just gave the vote to, before the US (so suffragettes didnt win anything that wasn’t happening already, they just facilitated themselves taking credit).

    the key here is that if the political masses is like a woman, the women blindly side with women. so an effete will garner a lot of women who will blindly trust him. don’t believe me? they blindly trust effete designers who contort their bodies and things to meet a gay Greek ideal of beauty, and blame regular men for it. but they never exile the gay men who they depend.. and who feed into their neurotic-ism.

    so feminism making us hate the masculine did waht to prepare us to be more collective and womanish, and so would respond to a more effete leader than the traditional masculine ones America has depended on. FDR was also weak, as was Wilson!!!

    that inside every woman the real woman inside wanting to get out is a little man…

    he s the prototype of the little man, an unnecessary duplicate, apparently, that one would never turn to look at twice.

    there are several themes running at once along these lines…

    and on being a blank slate to which others cast their whatevers upon…

    in his persona to the world hitler pays many parts. ther is the expressionless hitler, like a dummy standing with an upraised hand in the front of a motorcar… there is the embarrassed Hitler, ill at east even subservient, in the presence of a stranger, an aristocrat, a great general, or a king (as on his visit to italy)

    hows that for so many things so similar.
    how hux and others could deny it is easy, they had not known, all they had was hollyweird, and they somehow confused that with historical reality they never really learned.

    there is the gracious hitler, the soft good natured gentle informal and over modest, welcoming freindly admirers; as well as the sentimental hitler, weeping over a dead canary. then there was the tactical hitler who comes in at the critical moment with the daringly right decision

    we never saw him do that, right? (not to mention the reifenstahl elections, hatred of jews, racist base to his methods)…

    and the mystical hitler, hinginf of a thousand years superiority for the german folk, the posessed hitler, shriking with fanatical fury as he exhorts the masses, the hysterical htiler, rolling on the carpet or shaking in terror as he awakes from nightmares

    does obama look the way he does because upon taking the job, he started having nightmares? loosing sleep?
    but i think this matches too:
    the apathetic hitler, limp, indolent, and indecisive; and at all times the soapbox hitler, ready to go off half cocked on a long tirade even though he is addressing a single individual.

    of all these the tactical, the mystical and the possessed Hitler have been chiefly instrumental in winning the positions he now holds.

    it goes on to describe the childhood and other things.

    history repeats…

    and i guess we want to experience the excitement and not read the ‘spoilers’ as we now live our lives as spectators, not participants and feel save with having such close up seats.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    David Avera,
    read in my post what i say about baseball… :)

  20. Occam's Beard Says:

    This theory also explains Obama’s inability to throw a baseball.

    LOL! I had exactly the same thought when I read “Obama is a girly man”: he’s already got the throw down cold.

  21. Right Wing Extreme Says:

    I have said it before, and I will say it again. The left is full of manish women and womanish men. Who do you think wears the pants, Bill of Hillary?

  22. Baklava Says:


    OH GEEZ !


    Breastfeeding made creepy??? I don’t understand people anymore !!!

  23. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Mr. President, I’ve worked with women, I know women, women are friends of mine — and Mr. President, you’re no woman.

    And as for baseball, I can think of quite a few women who can throw a ball more like a man than you can. Plus, they know better than to wear Mom Jeans.

  24. Scott Says:

    At one Thanksgiving probably about 25 years ago, I remember we were discussing an article in the paper that day reporting how more and more women were getting jobs in blue-collar, male- dominanted fields like mechanics, steel workers, and the military.

    At one point my aunt declared matter of factly, “Women can do anything a guy can do. We can even pee standing up. It’s just a little messier”.

    I wonder if Kathleen has information that Barack pees sitting down?

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    But you cant say anything, they are the geniuses that will make a whole new world, one without war, and without masculine sciences, replaced with feminist physics, and feminist math… but mostly, women who are so creeped out about being alive, they exterminate us all the while singing how wonderful the future will be once its no longer a mans world.

    I am now starting to think that they delivered a self hatred so deep in women that they love, that what they really don’t like about men is that we don’t hate ourselves or delude ourselves to that degree.

    the kicker is that the ideology is really dominant among whites and Jewish women, meaning that the self loathing causing the eradication of those particular groups. [disproportionate representation of abortion clinics works on other groups]

    the idea that the masses poor is a collective harem for the elite just doesn’t dawn on the ladies. that Marx and Engels have facilitated them tarting up and racing to the bottom till hookers don’t even know what to wear to get customers.

    Reminds me of what Lenin was supposed to have said to Kollontai… who wants to drink from a dirty glass.

    here is a teacher commenting on her in terms of her class
    Ultimately, the sexual revolution in Russia failed, and her ideas were trivialized. A lot of people had sex, babies were born out of wedlock, but women didn’t have the ability to take care of them. Without birth control, free love turned out to be a lot better for men than it was for women.

    Still, my students get a kick out of her writing. She’s writing over a hundred years ago,, and yet she’s talking about the kind of sexual culture that exists today. The students can relate to it.

    and here is a response pointing out how the people actually felt about her

    Public opinion of her in Russia is that she was a bit off the deep end, but she was a woman of privilege who chose to become a committed revolutionary.

    She was sent into exile for her political work, studied at a university, wrote books, advocated for the sexual revolution, and railed against bourgeois feminism.

    She’s the kind of new Soviet woman they were trying to imagine. At least parts of it. She even came to the U.S. for a four-month speaking tour where she gave 123 lectures in four different languages.

    In terms of woman’s history in the U.S., there are the prominent figures like Emma Goldman, but because Kollontai was Russian not many people know about her. Interestingly, when I was in eastern Germany last summer I noticed there are still streets named after her.

    by the way… go back and read what they said about moses harmon and the same progressive ideas… nice newsletter: Lucifer bringer of light…

    is it so weird that feminists who claim a future where women would not have babies would create healthy individuals who aren’t so mental as to make normal life abnormal, and abnormal live normal?

  26. Occam's Beard Says:

    At one Thanksgiving probably about 25 years ago, I remember we were discussing an article in the paper that day reporting how more and more women were getting jobs in blue-collar, male- dominanted fields like mechanics, steel workers, and the military.

    A brief glance at workplace mortality statistics segmented by gender shows this to be rubbish.

    But in any case, it undercuts one of the feminists’ arguments that always irritated me: equal pay for “equivalent” jobs, equivalency being determined by..the feminists, of course. If working in an air-conditioned office is pretty much like working in a coal mine or steel mill then …go work in a coal mine or steel mill, and get that good pay. Think of all the paper cuts you’ll avoid.

    As Chris Christie said, if you think another job offers a better deal, then go take that job, and quit whining about your present one.

  27. Occam's Beard Says:

    And as for baseball, I can think of quite a few women who can throw a ball more like a man than you can.

    Same thing for Kerry. He stood halfway to the plate (with all his fingers on the ball, no less), and still couldn’t throw the ball all the way in the air. (Then he had the brass to say he was going easy on the catcher. Yeah, don’t bring the heat, John. Speed kills, and the catcher’s got so much to live for.)

    On the lighter side, on my baseball team now anyone making a weak throw is exhorted not to do his John Kerry impression.

  28. PA Cat Says:

    anyone making a weak throw is exhorted not to do his John Kerry impression.

    I have always thought that the reason the Sawx won the ’04 World Series was because Kerry scared The Curse clean out of the Fenway by his lousy campaign photo-op pitch.

    Speaking of the boys of summer, is Teh Won going to make a fool of himself at the All-Star game again this year?

  29. Occam's Beard Says:

    He’d be more at home at a synchronized swimming competition. More his speed.

  30. PA Cat Says:

    He’d be more at home at a synchronized swimming competition.

    I’m sure Governors Jindal and Barbour can find a suitable location.

  31. SteveH Says:

    I’d pay good money to watch Obama and Kerry change a flat tire.

  32. expat Says:

    Maybe the problem is that we assume masculine and feminine to be poles and try to place people on some gradient between them. It’s a bit like comparing a bowl of melted chocolate ice cream with a cup of lukewarm cocoa. If you use only temperature as the distinguishing factor, you miss the important fact that neither is what it ought to be.

    Obama may be a wimp, but that just means he fails as a man. I may be the least athletic person on the planet, but I wouldn’t have him as a water carrier on any team or sewing circle or other “feminine” group I’ve ever associated with. His shortcomings have nothing to do with my accomplishments (or lack thereof).

  33. Gringo Says:

    From Parker’s article:

    Indeed, negative reaction to Obama’s speech suggests the opposite.Obama may prove to be our first male president who pays a political price for acting too much like a woman.

    One can fault ∅ilbama for his performance on the oil spill for a number of reasons, such as: being indecisive, lack of leadership in getting the bureaucracy to respond to the oil spill, taking over a month to accept outside assistance, scapegoating BP, poor decision making in trying to stop offshore drilling (and not doing anything about Salazar’s deceitfulness on that score), being unengaged, etc.

    It is rather misogynistic to call such incompetence “acting too much like a woman.”

    My Okie grandmother with an 8th grade education would have done a lot better in that situation than ∅ilbama, as she was pretty good at sizing up situations, consulting, and deciding. She had much better judgment than ∅ilbama, and much less hesitation at exercising it. She also didn’t need a teleprompter to talk for an hour! :)

  34. betsybounds Says:

    I might pay good money to watch Kerry change a flat tire, but only if he didn’t wear one of those awful Spandex outfits. As for Obama, I’d rather have him at the ready with the tire pressure gauge. Check that inflation, you know what I mean.

    Sarah Palin could man the stop watch.

  35. Occam's Beard Says:

    I’d pay good money to watch Obama and Kerry change a flat tire.

    What, and ruin their manicures?

    You’re nasty. I like that. It’d be like watching Laurel and Hardy try to paint out of the same bucket.

  36. Occam's Beard Says:

    Maybe the problem is that we assume masculine and feminine to be poles

    I think we consider masculine and feminine as a pair of orthogonalized vectors of human characteristics, the result of a sort of psychosexual Gram-Schmidt process. No human actually lies directly along either axis, but rather somewhere in between. Nevertheless, it is useful to measure against these idealized axes and to assess the relative proportions of the contributions from each.

  37. expat Says:


    I agree you can make very useful statistical and idealized assessments of masculine and feminine characteristics. My point is that we need to assess Obama on a different scale. He happens to be male, but his shortcomings are at the level of basic humanity, character, integrity, competence, etc. You can be a non-athletic guy who tears up at sentimental movies and likes to cook and still be a fine man. Obama’s problems have nothing to do with chromosomes or sex hormones.

  38. Occam's Beard Says:

    My point is that we need to assess Obama on a different scale. He happens to be male, but his shortcomings are at the level of basic humanity, character, integrity, competence, etc.

    Sorry, I was telegraphic in my characterization above, for which I apologize. (Feminine characteristic? I dunno. /g) I wasn’t referring to human characteristics generally, but rather to ones considered sex-linked insofar as we characterize them as such. For example, aggression would fall on the masculine axis; yes, some women evince aggression, but it’s more typically considered a masculine characteristic. Therefore, in this idealized (orthogonalized) system it lies along the masculine axis (i.e., 60/40 becomes 100/0; this is the essence of the Gram-Schmidt process), and to the extent that women are aggressive in this scheme they are being masculine. Similarly, empathy would fall on the feminine axis, with the same provisos mutatis mutandis. Blue eyes? Neither masculine nor feminine, and therefore at the origin in this two-dimensional space.

    Does that help?

  39. JKB Says:

    Well, if Obama is a girly man, he’s a mean girl. Small, petty, vindictive, and always deride those who are his betters.

  40. JPeden Says:

    I don’t think that doing things a woman’s way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement.

    Man, if Parker’s kind of self-serving, bigoted thinking itself is an “evolutionary achievement”, we’re going to have to find a new definition for what constitutes a “critical defect”.

  41. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    Way down the thread, JKB hits an important point.

    Off topic. I would like to find a simple list of Obama faults, missteps, idiocies. Cash For Clunkers, Copenhagen x2, inserting himself in Cambridge police work. Anyone know where there is one?

    And no, I’m not sending it to a liberal – the excuse-making for each entry would wear me out. But I have some more open-minded folks who might be swayed by it.

  42. Jim Miller Says:

    I wrote about this column, too, mostly because I found it so baffling. (Half way into it I began wondering whether is was cover for some secret messages. Really, I did.)

    But having thought about it a little more, I came to this conclusion: It is wrong of Parker to insult women this way. And since I am very fond of (most) women, I resent that.

  43. PA Cat Says:

    Assistant Village Idiot–

    Here’s a start (one of Victor Davis Hanson’s recent summaries):


  44. br549 Says:

    The femininization of the presidency, of America, isn’t necessarily an evolutionary achievement….or a good thing.

  45. E.M. Crotchet Says:

    Scott Says:
    “I wonder [whether] Kathleen has information that Barack pees sitting down?”

    Most pious male Muslims do. Sir Richard Burton was once nearly exposed as a non-Muslim during his famous expedition to Medina and Mecca by forgetting, and was observed urinating in a standing position.
    Herodotus reports that the women of ancient Egypt stood to urinate whereas the men sat.

  46. expat Says:

    Gottcha. But if I figured out that a war leader shouldn’t announce a withdrawal date to the enemy, does that make me masculine or just smarter than The Won?

    Maybe his role model is Nelly Olsen.

  47. Occam's Beard Says:

    But if I figured out that a war leader shouldn’t announce a withdrawal date to the enemy, does that make me masculine or just smarter than The Won?


  48. Occam's Beard Says:

    Sorry to be flip but that’s an accurate assessment, IMO.

    The masculine perspective is not to give an enemy any potential advantage, because you – as a man – are going to pay the price for any miscalculation. When in doubt, err on the side of prudence.

    “Is that an iceberg?” “Maybe. Make sure we miss it, just in case it is, because we have last call on the lifeboats.”

    In the case of announcing a timetable for withdrawal, it’s also the intelligent perspective, simply from a game theory perspective.

  49. Decaf Says:

    Kathleen Parker is still exacting revenge on her husband for having the nerve to say out loud once that he found Sarah Palin attractive.

  50. G6loq Says:

    We were lucky Rush Limbaugh was a judge during the Miss America pageant …
    Otherwise we might have had another Nobel Price like debacle …

  51. Kathleen Parker declares Obama “our first woman President” Says:

    [...] I am not making this up. [...]

  52. Julia NYC Says:

    There’s no way we’re letting Obama be on our team. Sorry boys, he’s all yours.

  53. Kate Says:

    This is not feminization, and the President is not a “woman”, or even a “girlie man”. His behavior is typical “mean girl” – anyone who remembers teenage girls knows exactly the kind of behavior we’re talking about.

    Women are more mature than that. Mostly. It’s a shame there’s such a large mean girl clique in all the power positions.

  54. JuliB Says:



  55. JuliB Says:

    Wish I could edit… the earlier months may be better – not so much link based, and also focused primarily on Obama himself, rather than a chronicle of his ‘reign’.

  56. JuliB Says:

    http://www.nachumlist.com/Page2.htm is a good place to start…

  57. Baklava Says:


    YOU HIT THE NAIL on the head!

    I’ve always recognized his behavior as not mature and his leadership style without experience.

    SMACK ! He’s an mean girl.

    What was that movie with the cheerleader competition?

  58. Baklava Says:

    Gringo wrote, “My Okie grandmother with an 8th grade education would have done a lot better in that situation than ∅ilbama, as she was pretty good at sizing up situations, consulting, and deciding. She had much better judgment than ∅ilbama, and much less hesitation at exercising it. She also didn’t need a teleprompter to talk for an hour! :)

    The age of electronics has made many of us lazy. We use calculators, teleprompters…. oh wait… I don’t use a teleprompter and nobody I know does..

    Scratch that ! :)

  59. Occam's Beard Says:

    There’s no way we’re letting Obama be on our team. Sorry boys, he’s all yours.

    No no no no, Julia. One of yours claimed him, that makes him one of yours. Them’s the rules.

  60. Baklava Says:

    Art wrote, but mostly, women who are so creeped out about being alive, they exterminate us all the while singing how wonderful the future will be once its no longer a mans world.

    freezers will work for awhile…

  61. Promethea Says:

    There are many great comments here! I especially liked Assistant Village Idiot’s comment somewhere upthread about the Arts and Humanities tribe–what idiots they generally are.

    This is my tribe so I know them very well. Their basic characteristic is that they are glib, and they think that if they know one thing well then they are experts on everything.

    Kathleen Parker is one of these glib fools. I don’t know what she does well, but she obviously convinced some people that she should be paid for writing stuff. So I suppose she could be called a “writer.” She’s a blathering ignoramus.

    Regarding the characteristics of men and women. It’s pretty clear that there’s a big overlap. Obama is an inadequate leader plus he’s a knave and a fool. He’s also a tool for America’s enemies.

    I hope we can rebuild America after he’s gone. We have a great country.

  62. Baklava Says:

    It’s not just Obama sadly.

    It’s been building to a crescendo which got Obama elected.

    But we can’t make it about ∅bama himself.

    The stupidity and lack of common sense is rife through through many of our leaders.

    We in CA see it in our CA leaders as well…

  63. Artfldgr Says:

    “Cold War never ended. It’s like a virus, you apply the medicine and virus develops a resistance and it continues.” Sergei Tretyakov.

    and any part left remaining, even if you don’t believe its a part, will return and keep going.. in this way, the duped who dont belive, becime resevoirs… and until they die, and go away, the desease can come back over and over.

    the progressives started in 1830s… never stopped, like malaria, they just die out, and then flare back until they win. (once the woman’s caucus voted and made their choice there was no choice, only semblance and games)

    “The Woman’s Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought.” — Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

    what the useful idiots believe or act like and so on is irrelevant, as there are no other choices. you are either a part, or irrelevant, or an irrelevant part.

    “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

    not socialist… not enlightenment, but SOVIET….

    so not realizing that they brought you right to where they said they were bringing you and never deviated from that, and then understanding, leads one to defend the indifensible because its familiar (and in the absence of anything else, the only familiar thing).

    one is not free if one is part of a movement that tells you how to live rather than supports you in how you live and does not favor you because of some difference from others.

    one cant stand up and be a complete individual if one cant stand up without some false group pretending that you owe them everything…

    Obama is the result of training of the people to more strongly respond to the same cues that worked before. why so long? because length of time means knitted in fabric, and one will keep their own leg and die of cancer rather than cut it off.

    so the long march and such works against good people having the strength to stand without the false crutch.

    [just remember, they never did a damn thing. they didnt fund women, they didnt help plan, they didnt do anything other than take credit for anything they could going back to plato, and beyond... and a guilt trip that if you succeed you owe them, even though they didnt help... and the fear that if you dont comply yuor going to be outed and there is no other group to belong to... standing alone is scary...

    and naturally scarier for one gender than another for good reason

    one was made to have altercations in which the outcome is a shifting of the social structure

    one was made to have altercations that protect that structure, but whose outcomes go all the way to death, and can carry to the whole losing social structure.

    the first does not believe the second is valid any more.

    however, the men would make sure the women wouldn't kill each other, and so their coalitions and methods assume no external entity of superior force and extreme ends.

    by changing our society from masculine to feminine, we assume that all things are like women's internal world, not mens external world. [note that even when losing, often women would not be killed but get absorbed into the new culture -ergo their fluidity]

    and so, what you have is meeting one game with the strategies of another game.

    you don’t need to change everyone to succeed.

    you only need to change women, and they will change the rest for you. besides, women are easier to change, as they are afraid of outcomes more are more suggestible, and so forth. all qualities that work in an inner sphere… and it all follows their proclivity to seek others to handle things (like going to there husband, they go to the state)

    in essence, totalitarian states are feminine states, as masculine states would not submit.

    so the romantic era pretending to be the enlightenment has declared a condition that is not valid, and we have changed under the belief of superior outcome, all the while ignoring history, biology, and common sense.

    what other outcome can there be as long as that all continues unabated?

  64. raf Says:

    Occam: Regarding Masc/Fem orthoganality, I have often wondered if Strong/Weak weren’t a simpler and more powerful structure. I have observed closer correlation between behavior and status than between behavior and sex. Also, I have observed that people change their behavior patterns when in different environments where their power status changes. Since in general society, women are likely to be weaker than men, they would be more likely to exhibit those behaviors, but put them in an all-female environment, and some of them start acting “masculine,” ie, strong. I think I like this model because it doesn’t require “exceptions” for women like Thatcher or Meir.

  65. Artfldgr Says:

    AVI I would like to find a simple list of Obama faults, missteps, idiocies. Cash For Clunkers, Copenhagen x2, inserting himself in Cambridge police work. Anyone know where there is one?

    Obama’s Legacy of 1,500 Lies (So Far!)

  66. Artfldgr Says:


    Complimentary pairs can do things that are mutually exclusive to other qualities. ergo men and women are complimentary.

    by being so, they outperform other forms. which is why heterosexual unions dominated, AND why feminits/gay movemetn wants to share 50/50 roles.

    complimentary pairs outperform by a wide margin homogeneous pairs.

    its mathematically simple and provable and you dont even have to use male or female.

    create two types of creature. create a list of qualities named asdaada to zzxasdadf… then randomly assign values to them…

    now, remove those values that are the same (blue eyes)… now go down the list and add up the numbers of the pairs that are the highest values.

    this is equal to a complimentary pair taking advantage of comparative advantage. he is tall, so he reaches for things, etc.

    the higher score over a lower score mimics the description above for Gram-Schmidt process, except that there is no reason to make 60/40.. just add up all the higher ones… in that way, your basically saying the one that is better at quality asdaada than the other.

    you now can take two females, and two males, and add up their scores.

    no matter what you do, the non complimentary pairs can only score up to the mean. they can NEVER perform above average…

    if you make it more accurate, by adding things like childbirth… in which its 100/0 and you vary each type of creature ‘sex’ around a percentage to make a population of people not horses…

    your still going to get the same result.

    occasionally your going to get a few who score high enough to be examples to the rest of what might be but is in reality unattainable. (such misery, someone who loves misery, would love this)

    i have written and run this simulation over and over, and played with it. unless the variance is so much that all of them can pass each other widely in either direction, the system cant maximize along two non complimentary pairs.

    two tall people cant fit into small space
    two short people cant reach as high

    for those who want to be clever and say a stool, they have taking in the crap false argument and not really looked. tools make no difference, they just shift the numbers around. they don’t balance them.

    so modern life will not create conditions that will result in what they claim to be able to give us if we just believe them, defend them, and abandon our past and embrace their ways (which ignore us as people).

  67. Artfldgr Says:

    the complimentary pair that splits task always scores the mean… that is… if you have them do what gives them comparitive advantage, you have the top score for the pair… if you do the opposite, you get the lowest performance.. if you average the two, you get the mean, and that will equal waht yuo get when you share tasks 50/50 rather than divide them alogn proclivity and skill.

    now this causes heterosexual couples to break up. why? becasue after so many centuries of this kind of thing, the measure of outcome or leave has been ingrained in women…

    that is, if your in a relationship, and the relationship under performs what her judgment in mating with that person had, then she will fall out of love to find a pair that on average outperforms the average.

    so if the couple ignore feminism, and do their thing along what they like and dislike and make their own way based on traditional roles, and they perform better, tend to have more kids as performing better does that, the kids have fewer problems, and so that is better too… and on.

    but if they are “progressive” they are going to do what the feminists have mandated all the good useful idiots do. they will abandon their comparitive advantage, and they will split the work.

    she will be upset he doesnt do as well as she on tasks she does better

    he will be upset that she doesnt peform as well as he on tasks he does better

    her biology will be unsettled as she questions her ability to pick a good mate… she then decides that the blame cant be the feminist missives or the enlgihtened ideollgy, and she listens to them tell her.. if it doesnt work then its his fault…

    and NONE of them take a look at the situation that they have been forced into!!!

    they jut cant understand… she leaves and then tries again… and she forces the same feminist 50/50 lets be fair thing… and so gets the same outcome. by now all men are incompetent. [and to the men?]

    the leaders myst be wetting their pants at the misery and hoops they are getting normal people to jump through…

    look at palin… they dont want thei followers to have a successful life like palin. palin did what she did best, not what femnists told her. AND she didnt give the sisterhood credit for her success…

    Madam cj walker – same thing
    Emmy Noether – same thing

    heck… wait till this friday and beck lays out that women had the vote in America in the late 1700s
    there were others who were lawyers, and all kinds of thigns. but you have no idea that they even exist.

    if you did, then perhaps these others wouldnt be defended with anecdote… and an anecdote that if accepted from everyone as truth, would make their existence a myth, as no one knows any.

    if you want to know if your compatriots are what they wanted them to be, then look at what is really different that matters.

    back then women thought smoking was filthy, after feminists teamed up with big tobacco for money, lung cancer, heart disease, early death, were equated with liberation.

    so if any of them smoked, you can check off one point

    any of them have tattoos? if so, you can check off another point. score extra if its a tramp stamp… or if the woman is Jewish.

    any of them have sex before a committed relationship? score another point

    any of them have a STD? score another point

    any of them have a divorce? score another point.

    the fact that we think all that is normal and part of our lives not to be noted, is why you can sit in a room with a bunch of modern women and think that they are not part of things.

    every one of those things is part of it and either helped facilitate money, or some cultural change which facilitated statism.

    dont matter what the old guard who was raised before are like, they didnt pass themselves and their wisdom on. it matters what the young ones growing up do and take on.

    50% lost their virginity before they were 17…

    social progressives and feminists think its great.
    as do communists on the long march thanks to bella kuhn… and the public is pitted against itself over the issue.

    so many have STDs that we want to give out shots for it as if it was polio. these STDs will result in infertility and a lowering of the population affected (that’s ok, with abortion, eugenics, and putting off till too late, its just going to hasten the extermination of the oppressor race!! that’s what they say)

    for every woman that has no children, another has to have 5… to keep the population stable.

    ever think that the feminists put us in this position of social security and collapse as they prodded women to abort babies that would have grown up and funded things? that by denuding us and changing the demographics, AND destroying family stablity…

    they have facilitated the coming progressive revolution as they said they would as they told the ladies that ignore that, and disbelieve that. [i find it odd that people will still stick up for those that are helping finalize what they are opposed to]

    like eli weisel, they will only realize when they close the door on the van and realize what they really wanted was inside.

    to live free is to define your own life

    how women thought that being free was to leave their mates, their biology, and seek meaning in a corporate structure in which the only real meaning is that when you come home, you give all that money to your family (somehting that women dont do. period. they dont accept supporting a husband the way a husband would support them, and they certainly dont think that if the roles were reversed and tiger woods was female, that the female should pay 700 million.)

    personally.. i don’t care.
    i don’t care which way it goes…
    which is why i can see it.
    i have no dog in this fight

    i know that women don’t need feminists…
    its women that don’t know it.

    just as i know that blacks dont need sharptons and race baiters, and communism…
    its Africans that dont know it.

    I know that africans and such people have a real culture, and that the man making up kwaanza and others are just screwing their own people.
    its africans that dont know it.

    as beck said yesterday.

    when he talkes to those who lived from these places or had family and were close, they all say the same thing. theyunderstand the language and the games.

    its the people who have never played this game who think they understand it, and are telling us we are wrong, and that it cant happen, and so on. you would think that if you never played a complicated game like fán t’án and pák kóp piú…

    here is how i see it:
    you never played, you watched in passing, you don’t know the rules, or the codes, and you don’t want to read and learn them. you refuse to believe the ends of the game, nor to abandon pieces that are your opponents. you get angry that someone is trying to kibitz believing your opponent gives better advice, and through it all, no matter how much your down, even trillions, you believe your winning and or will win in the end.

    and since we are in the role of cassandra, and we know what happened to her, most of us just stay quiet.

    its as i explained to my wife. i can stop someone from stepping on a land mine, but cant show them the mine they just missed. so instead of being happy, they will pound on me for what now is not a situation. or i can let them step on a land mine, blow their leg off, and nod my head what a shame.

    why should all these immigrant sound up and let everyone in on it when they are going to be attacked as tin hat, paranoid, don’t know Americans, etc.

    better to let you step on the mine, no?

    at least after the mine goes off, you both can have a common understanding as members of the peg leg society.

  68. Julia NYC Says:

    Kathleen Parker’s essay was an insult to women. Sure, there are some dumb bunnies out there, just like there are some dumb bunny dudes. However, women have long been known to be our own worst enemies, I am getting sick of it, but it’s probably getting better. Did most women vote for Hillary or Palin. Hell no.

    In fact it was the women were saying the worst things about Palin.

    Well what can I say. Some people are JERKS no matter what gender. And some folks are great no matter their gender. Who’d a thunk it? Character is character, and if you’ve got it, you’ve got it. The great thing about character is it can be developed. So if you have none, you can work on it and get some. What a great deal!

  69. SteveH Says:

    The good thing about being a free market white guy is you mostly don’t get coddled and pampered in the world for your poor victim status. Which I think is precisely whats made so many minorities and females have untenable positions in areas of politics these days. They’re hell bent and entitled to be exactly opposite of their so called oppressors and victimizers.

    I figure it’ll get fixed about the time air conditioning and stocked grocery store shelves become a rarity.

  70. Artfldgr Says:

    For female baboons, too, it’s good to have friends
    July 1st, 2010 in Biology / Plants & Animals

    of course, don’t tell the feminist baboons.

    they might learn that male baboons haven’t been oppressing them since life began.

    Female baboons that maintain closer ties with other members of their troop live substantially longer than do those whose social bonds are less stable

    “Our results suggest that close, stable social relationships have significant reproductive benefits,” said Joan Silk of the University of California, Los Angeles. “The data add to a growing body of evidence from humans and other animals that females with a strong, supportive social network are healthier and have greater reproductive success.”

    and that lends to the points i made above about how we are compared to how the social progressives want us to be (and we arent).

    this above results in the inner world outer world thing. female baboons as with humans live inside a society in which men maintain the borders of.

    females fertility is more valuable, and so theri relatinships dont end in death as much as the greater good od a child from a bad parent growing up ok.

    so for most women, removing or reducing their group is out of the realm of their contemplation (other than for fantasy pleasure). for them, reorganizing the hierarchy is enough..

    but the men dont deal with only those who its more beneficial to always preserve life and rejigger.

    almost all women if not all women will have children, so their jiggering does not lead to genetic extinction of their contribution.

    but rejiggering for men can result in that. so men play a game that is more for keeps as the game they are in is more for keeps.

    over time this game gets less and less brutal because men and women pair off, rather than make other mating arrangements.

    monogamy leads to more stable societies as the men no longer are put in a position of do something desperate or else be extinct.

    the other forms are generally variants on harems. serial monogamy is mathematically equivalent to being a lower caste woman in a harem who is shared with the guests. (but dont tellt hem that, they think that its liberating since they were told that by people who want their lives to be upended so that political gain can be collected easier than merit).

    when the fit hits the shan the reality of it will sink in.

    when the opponents are not fellow people of society, but externals, then the reality will sink in.

    it will be too late, but they will have enough time to realize what they did, or didn’t do, and what the end result for their familial lineage and their contributions will be.

    trying to accelerate a trend that you like that will happen, does not get you to the same place earlier, it prevents arrival at that place forever, and so you declare where you end up as that place you cant get to.

  71. Artfldgr Says:

    “Given that high-ranking females have priority of access to food resources, one might have predicted that rank would be the primary factor influencing longevity,” said Dorothy Cheney of the University of Pennsylvania. “Our results indicate instead that the quality of a female’s social bonds with other females is more important, suggesting that subordinate females may be able to offset the competitive disadvantage of low rank through their social relationships.”

    given that there is no other heirarchy allowed under feminism, women internally feel that if they dont protect it and do what they are supposed to do to be in that one, they are isolated from their social place.

    and so, low ranked women, who are not the leaders, fall in line…

    the idea that they can stand alone and not need a social group is anathema to their biology.

    so in effect getting rid of their mates can only result in their seeking a replacement, not the idea of not having one.

    so just as removing religion makes people worship the state.

    removing the mates, makes women mate with the state as new provider.

    and if she doesnt make her local only heirarchy happy, she sees how they will marginalize a high status woman… so they know that unlke her they cant survive, so they do what they were made to do and organize the way they evolved.

    (just as the men did, which is why these ogres have not stepped forward, pushed women to the side, put collars on them, and taken back what women claim men have (but dont. as women always had it. they were just told that they have no power and believed it, so that others could grant them the power they had. just like the state taking away rights you always have, and then granting them back as a reward pretending they are the source).

    so just like a clique of girls in school.. the local groups are not the same as the high status groups. but they follow the line any way as they are still part of the whole

    and just like in society, the local ladies are not the same as the leaders. but they tow the line, as there is no other group to be with.

    if you dont believe that biology is this strong, then look at shopping. women want men to come along and just stand there, as they dont want them to help shop… why?

    beacause in the old days, she would go to places with her sisters, but would save the best locations for her mate and her.

    problem is that there is strength in numbers and she wont go to the special place alone and unprotected, that is not a good survival thing.

    so for those shopping trips, she takes her mate, who will stand there and protect her from anything that will jump out from the bushes that hold clothes, the racks like vines and the trails thorugh the aisles all smooth compared to the carpet where the grass can grow, i mean carpet isnt so worn.

    she wants her mate to protect her as she picks berris. the store arranges things in the form of berry bushes and clusters. she doesnt like the stuff on the trails (so they put chep stuff there), and she prefers the hidden stuff off trail (where they put the expensive stuff).

    they add greenery, and flowers to make it all look very fertile and abundant. and they make sure that they add fruit to the products, as primates favorite thing is fruit.

    the men, who are more efficient, know there is no lion, or creature in the clothing racks, and he finds it a wast of his time and productivity, that she judges him by, to be there.

    if he leaves or wont go, she gets upset, because internally that is a mate that would leave her to the lions.

    having less to do with an empirical world, they are less empirical and more instinctual and feelings based. having more to do with an empirical world as they are judged by their mates by their effectiveness in that world, they are better adapted to dealing with its externalities and extreme competitive methods.

  72. Honestly! really! again??! « Rumcrook’s Blog Says:

    [...] Kathleen Parker: Obama Is Our First Woman President [...]

  73. Baklava Says:

    Will should be banned.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge