by Suzanne Eovaldi
The Vagina Ghetto is not a phrase I penned. Another reporter so aptly applied this use of female-as-fool to describe how the Left and its insane power-push yet again used a woman to further their agenda. In the words of Barbra Streisand, Christine Blasey Ford woman was played like a fiddle and in ancillary fashion, so too were the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Consider how a highly educated woman so schooled in academic protected status could let herself be used by flaccid old white males for their own political aims. So ostensibly articulate, so gifted with intellectual brilliance, yet so hobbled by female hormones, this CA girl/woman allowed men to manipulate her psyche to the point of appearing a doddering fool in front of the nation and the world. How could someone who can comfortably toss off such five dollar words as factoids, etiology and sequelae (after effects of trauma) be reduced to a little girl voice trying to explain what decades-old teen speak ‘cop a feel’ means? Her hormones simply do not fit with her academic persona as displayed in her written vs. spoken words.
I deduce that Christine Blasey Ford has known precisely what she’s been doing; that she, along with Democrat handlers, never would have undertaken this partisan mission had she not been indoctrinated into the toxic, liberal, progressive ideology which has split her feminine reality. Her structured, flowing prose is very antithetical with a sex-abuse victim telling of her primal pain.
The most glaring syntax that jumps out at me is the Ford phrase: “I resigned myself.” This screams of an interloping phrase, a delaying rhetorical mechanism, time-buying for an intellect that has already distanced itself from her vague recollections of some sort of sex event that, yes, may have happened. But she just isn’t sure which male did what to her. (More “legal protection” or just outright confusion?) Now, she has the veil of psychological disconnect which her profession affords her.
I recall a friend of long ago who was married to a psychiatrist, that is an MD with post graduate studies in the field of psychology. One day she opened up her heart to me to tell me of the troubled marriage she was enduring with this man. His gas-lighting was driving her crazy and she finally began to understand what he was doing. “He’d know how to do it,” she told me one day. Her husband was using his knowledge of the word Dr. Ford used, the ‘hippocampus,’ to literally drive my friend out of her marriage and her home. How can Ford be comfortable with such five dollar words yet not know the meaning of “exculpatory?” She can not define this legal term–to be blameless, from the Latin roots of ex=out, and culpare=to blame–because she is not blameless herself.
Looking more deeply into the good professor’s syntax, we find that Dr. Ford is not ‘Splitting.’ Splitting refers to what a sex abuse trauma victim does based on the primal violation of her/his most basic human need for safety, protection. Ford appears to feel rather safe in front of these neutered males, believing perhaps in a superior intellectual command of the situation attributed to her many years in front of a classroom setting whereby she was well challenged by many students in many ways. Her Democrat handlers chose her well for these very reasons!
However, what belies the deepest connection she has to a reality she is trying to impose on these men is her written word. Her written word disconnects from her spoken word. Her flowing prose is antithetical with a sex abuse victim telling what really happened. Again, I go back to “I resigned myself.” A female so abused as she says she was would never say, “I resigned myself.” Her prepared statement flows with an ordered syntax not compatible with a verbal description of her professed inner pain. To have believability and credibility, Ford’s syntagmatic presentation does not compute. A sex abuse victim would write in much more jerky style, with more vernacular expressions and with a clear display of fear. She simply does not reveal the SPLITTING so evident in a sexually abused victim. Not to remember where or when the incident happened, how she got home, who else was there, to enter a house alone with four men–which suddenly became two– come on, how inexperienced is that?
How much and who paid for her bought appearance, even to the color of navy which Monica wore? Owlish glasses often adjusted to push back her long, little girl curls and coquettish flashes of expressions. I am not buying it.
How come no one has asked our fragile little girl/woman such questions as: How much income did you collect or not collect from the web-rumored job you may have had with an abortion pill company? Just what connection to you, your two lawyer brothers and to your father may or may not have existed with the CIA, the Mueller probe, to any governmental assets in general? Did none of your familial relatives signed a good girl affirmation for the Committee because they, in fact, helped you to script your statements? Reveal any outside forces–especially those connected to the Democrat party–which are paying your freight or coaching your way through any of this.
I never cease to be amazed by the brilliant, educated women who let men define them. These females set back our womens’ ‘march to equity’ by at least fifty years. Yes, girls, there is truth in the old saying, Anatomy is Destiny.