ESPN to Men: ‘No Man, No Problem’
ESPN is the new Democratic Party, and female privilege is the new equality.
January 22, 2011 - 12:04 am
The rampant decline both of society and our personal liberties can be partially explained by O’Sullivan’s First Law. Named after conservative luminary John O’Sullivan, it states: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” In regards to an organization like ESPN, recent events have confirmed the validity of his hypothesis. The network was not formed with politics in mind. Perhaps that explains why a cable channel, supposedly devoted to activities that predominantly appeal to men, over time became a wayward cauldron of political correctness. While absurd, this fact would come as no surprise to Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford. The foundations that the two deceased capitalists created have morphed into institutions that pander and fund radicalism. Similarly, the news concerning the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network has gone from ugly to Behar in just a few short years.
That most men love sports is common knowledge. It is also common knowledge that most males do not feel affection for political correctness. Therefore, like SpikeTV, ESPN should have either no relationship or an adversarial relationship with the totalitarian virus known as cultural Marxism. Sadly, they do not.
ESPN is as cozy with PC as feminists are with the WNBA. Since the autumn of 2003, when the network set up and humiliated Rush Limbaugh, watching the 24/7 sports channel has been a conflicted pleasure for conservatives.
This was stated without a Wasserman’s worth of evidence. However, that reporter still appears on Sundays though history proved Limbaugh’s assessment of Donovan McNabb correct and the racist correspondent’s wrong.
A few years later, ESPN utilized Rule Number One of Political Correctness, “a woman is never wrong,” as justification for expelling baseball commentator Harold Reynolds. The infraction he committed was hugging an intern in a hallway. Seriously. Three weeks later she complained about the event, so aloha meant goodbye for Mr. Reynolds.
You see, a central tenet of PC is that women are oppressed. Thus, should one of them become disgruntled or allegedly disgruntled, some man, somewhere, must pay. Fortunately, Reynolds sued and ESPN settled. American courts have yet to codify the cultural edict “all men are helots.”
Shortly thereafter, the cable channel followed up on its previous egregious treatment of Reynolds by terminating the contract of another baseball analyst, Steve Phillips. Mr. Phillips cheated on his wife with a psycho production assistant. Admittedly, his decision-making and choice of concubines was far from sound, but the weirdness that occurred post-coitus had nothing to do with him.
Why was Phillips fired for having an extramarital affair? Divorce is a predictable outcome, but why would an employer purge an adulterer from its rolls? The plot would have played out differently were he a woman. I cannot think of a situation in which a wife was fired for cheating on her husband. Most likely none ever occur.
Holding men to a higher standard — while trumpeting the manufactured illusion of female superiority — is an integral component of PC. Its philosophical line: women good, men bad. It must be that way … in the name of equality.
In the advent of a dispute between a particular man and woman, presumption favors the woman. Despite society’s blatant tilting of the gender playing field, articles consistently announce how superfluous men are to society. Indeed, we approach “the end of men.” Alas, no end to female privilege is in sight.
Interestingly enough, no misandrists in the press attribute the recent successes of women to predatory anti-male sexual harassment laws or state-sponsored employment discrimination against men. In 2011, a sane man who asks women out at work or verbally spars with them is a man who won the lotto the day before.
If women are humanity’s “sacred band,” it’s rather puzzling that the Leviathan automatically caters to feminists’ every demand. Gods do not normally require federal assistance … for nearly everything.
ESPN ponders no such questions. They fulfilled the expectations of cultural Marxism earlier in the month when they cut loose football commentator Ron Franklin, thus eviscerating a 20 plus year relationship with the announcer. They had no choice. During an off-the-air conversation Mr. Franklin insulted a female, fellow employee Jeannine Edwards.
Purportedly, Edwards interjected herself into a conversation Franklin had with two co-workers. Franklin dismissed her input with the words, “Why don’t you leave this to the boys, sweetcakes,” (she said later it was “sweet baby”). Edwards responded, “Don’t call me sweetcakes, I don’t like being talked to like that.” Franklin ended the discussion with, “OK then, a**hole.”
And that was that. Farewell Ron Franklin. Certainly what he said was impolite, but drawing a conclusion based on what was reported is impossible. No dialogue — except what you hear in a Charlie Brown cartoon — occurs in isolation.
In order to know the truth one must determine what Edwards said. Specifically, what precipitated Franklin’s rude response? Did she make a derogatory statement about men, one that caused him to answer the way he did? No one asked and no one cares. In a country where women are granted cult status, “she started it” is not a defense.
Every inquiry here is below our leftist media’s attention span. They never saw a non-conservative woman they didn’t want to elevate or a non-conservative man they didn’t wish to diminish. As far as they are concerned, there were no gaps in the conversation.
The Huffington Post decried Franklin’s “sexist comments.” Yahoo News, edited by the husband of an influential radical feminist, bemoaned the “harassing behavior” of Franklin. The Washington Post found the result predictable given that Franklin once called a different female correspondent “sweetheart.” The horror!
Andrea Kremer, another reporter at the network, ignored Franklin’s plight and the destruction of his fine career. She used the imbroglio as a pretense to lobby for more victim status for women. Kremer believes that the supposed vitriol that female sideline reporters are subjected to is the real problem.
What poppycock. Ms. Kremer could always get a new job if a lack of fan adoration so unnerves her. As can Edwards who, unlike Franklin, still earns a big paycheck. Both high-achieving women have yet to learn that criticism is part of life. Deal with it. They can do it! No therapists or public flagellations of one’s male co-workers are required.
Moreover, the media objections to Franklin’s response were false at a fundamental level. None of what the ex-announcer said equates with sexism. Sexism used to mean discriminating against someone on the basis of sex.
Calling someone “sweet baby” or “sweet cakes” is odd but not discriminatory, and unquestionably Mr. Franklin has used the word “a—hole” to describe many a man over the years.
In the final analysis, an organization fueled by PC is an organization gone mad. Franklin’s firing was ludicrous. No employer should get involved in the extraneous conversations that employees have. If Ms. Edwards and her ilk wish to live sanitized lives they should stay at home in their self-esteem bubbles.
ESPN could have insisted that she sort it out with him on her own or merely demanded that Franklin apologize. No doubt he would have and given Edwards wide berth in the future. Problem settled. Instead, the infamous sports network chose a Stalinist solution, “No man, no problem.”
When the PC brainwashed hear a woman complain they immediately switch to termination mode. The man must be guilty. A woman never lies. Any fool who uttered the dreaded words “sweet baby” or “sweet cakes” gets relegated to the dole. A man who insults a woman — or teases her about her dress — is unemployable today.
Female conservatives would be happy to tell Mr. Franklin that the truth is completely irrelevant. All it took was a simple gaze at a mug shot or a YouTube video to ascertain that the carnage in Arizona was caused by a mental patient, but the left is above such investigations. If they were not how else could they pin the tragedy on Sarah Palin? Who, by the way, does not speak schizophrenic.
After the former Alaskan governor responded to the spurious charges against her, Democratic activists, aka “the press,” ignored her message entirely. They instead pretended that a term she used in her speech was anti-Semitic. At this point, any conservative who has anything positive to say about the political left is a masochist.
Mr. Franklin should consider himself lucky not to have been brought up on criminal charges given our current misandric and hyper-sensitive climate. In three decades, crossing a woman may well become a capital crime.
Franklin forgot that society is very clear on this subject. Women are noble, independent, superior beings and the hidden geniuses behind human achievement. Their works drive civilization, except for when they fail, get their feelings hurt, or desire attention. When any of those unforeseen circumstances occur one thing must be done. Find a suitable male and place blame upon him.
In short, women are masters of the universe except for in those situations when it becomes obvious that they are not. Then, the monstrous federal Leviathan will rescue them from both shame and responsibility. Should the government respond too slowly, ESPN’s fullback sweep is hunched down in a three-point stance — ever ready to plow through any obstacle set before them.
Only to male Neanderthals does equality mean treating people equally. A cable network and the political left know better. ESPN is the new Democratic Party, and female privilege is the new equality.