It’s the gender, ethnicity or participation which counts …

… not the skillset.  This was underlined by JHB earlier:

Also interesting reading this about Buttkick in the States:

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19824

… courtesy of our roving ferret, Chuckles:

Like all managerial types, Buttigieg is a box ticker. He is not a man who actually does things in the world. Rather, he participates in things, gains a credential for having participated in them and uses the credential to advance his career. He was valedictorian of his high school and “won first prize in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum’s Profiles in Courage essay contest.” Then it was off to Harvard and then Oxford for a Rhodes scholarship in Philosophy.

After accumulating all of the credentials he could from his college experience, he went off to work entry level positions in politics and the media, in order to build his resume and network of contacts. Then it was off to McKinsey & Company, one of the major training centers for managerial class strivers. In anticipation of a political career, he joined the Navy reserve for an uneventful turn as an intelligence officer. He finally landed as the mayor of South Bend Indiana.

Buttigieg has the nearly perfect managerial man resume. The only thing that tarnishes it is he may have accidentally done something useful while in the service, like empty a trash barrel or remember to turn off the coffee pot. Otherwise, his is a resume littered with participation medals.

My field at school had been English language and sport, I then set that aside and went off to study Law, Economics and Politics, gaining a bit of paper at the end of it.

A decade and a half later, I went back to up the quals in yet another direction – biology and health, sub-majoring in ethical issues in biology, which was interesting because I’d not taken biology since 5th form or Year 11.

I knew SFA about it and double helixes were pretty artwork as far as I was concerned. Of course one can learn but it became apparent that I was going to pass anyway with a reasonable result.

There’d been a quantum shift in the approach to students by then, a huge number of girls were now studying and I saw many of them using their charms on the male profs and lecturers but to be fair, they did work hard and were good girls, submitting their work, playing the whole game for all it was worth, staying behind to discuss issues.

It was when I’d been graded D for a political piece I’d submitted which I knew was diametrically opposed to the lecturer’s views – he was very pro-Freud and Jung, I opposed them for the hell of it [those were also the debating society days] – that I then went to a girl I was friends with and saw her work which had received an A.  Not saying it was no good, not in the least, but it was the most compliant piece of *&^%^&* I’d seen in a long while – she was the loveliest creature on earth, beautiful eyes.

She was unrepentant – that’s how you got along in her book, a lesson I never learnt.  May I mention my own dear WN1 – she got a job with EMI in a technical section – she didn’t know the first thing about it but she had the gift of the blarney, that she did.  Plus she was gorgeous – looked a bit like Joanna Lumley at the time.

The JHB comment above and the Z Man’s quote took me back to those days, plus my own teaching of a myriad students of the female persuasion.  What has to be admitted is that according to the marking structure, they did fine – almost no absences, all work submitted on time, even some brilliance here and there.

A boy whose attendances were appalling asked for special consideration.  He knew he’d failed by the usual criteria but asked if he could sit an exam I’d prepare, he had two weeks, he took it and killed it – 90 something percent.  I’ll say this for all those girls – they certainly worked very hard, their submissions were exemplary, what can one say?

This is completely different to what meathead Rudd is on about though, as readers are well aware.  To her, if it has a vaggy thingy, then it should automatically be in.  Just look at Wrong Daily and that other one, her mate. Look at Chloe Smith about to be given a second nod as Boris’s new babe.

And so we return to Buttkick above:

He is also symbolic of his generation. The generation of Americans, who grew up in the Clinton years and reached adulthood at the turn of the century, are probably the most entitled and effete cohort ever produced. They grew up in the easy years after the Cold War and never faced anything resembling hard times. They came into the world expecting things to turn out well for them. They were also raised by women in a highly feminized educational system and took on those qualities.

The fact that Pete Buttigieg is a genetic dead end is probably the most symbolic aspect of his character.

See – as for the girls, there are trad girls and then there are this lot, the Modern Girls, Buttkicks in skirts, with added tatts and nosebones.  And as JHB says, it’s the skillset, the quality of the person, the suitability, the ability, which counts for her and I’d say for many millions.

Not for the Rudds and Buttkicks of the world though.

And the colleges of learning are crammed with this latter type, teeming with them.  Qualified to lead a country?  I hardly think so.