You just gotta love Camille Paglia. Well, maybe not all the time, but her writing is succinct and well reasoned; even if you don’t agree with the central thesis of whatever piece you happen to be reading. I’m quite sure that as often as I’ve shaken my head in amazement at her stances, some of her liberal friends find themselves in the same boat. Her article from last Thursday is a great example of what I mean. I’m quite sure she’s pissed off more than a few of her fellow abortion rights comrades by highlighting their religious fervor towards the issue of abortion, much the same way the pro-choice movement derides those of a more traditional religious viewpoint. I’ll give her this much; she’s consistent and declares herself to be more courageous than her fellow abortion rights supporters who hide behind what she calls the “cowardly euphemism” term of “pro-choice.” Courageous indeed.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt...

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt…

Paglia was writing about the unfortunate slip of the tongue of Hillary the Great, the anointed democrat nominee. (Can nominee and anointed be used in the same sentence?) Was Hillary trying to soften her abortion stance, hoping to move as far to the right as Bernie will allow her, or was this actually a deep rooted conviction from a woman who has really only shown a deep rooted conviction for anything that might benefit Hillary? Was Hillary simply confused when she referred to the fetus as an “unborn person,” quite possibly recalling her junior high school biology lessons where I and millions of other eager yet empty headed youngsters first learned that when a woman gets pregnant, she’s carrying a human child and not a puppy, a goldfish or a snail? How dare she humanize a fetus? Did she possibly search Webster’s online: “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically :  a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Say what you will, but I won’t be shaken from the certainty that you’re killing something that was always human. It’s biology you see.

It’s quite amazing, really, and somewhat depressing that young women are being taught that they’re not carrying anything that even remotely looks like their own baby pictures. If you don’t humanize it, it’s easier to kill it. And heaven forbid someone offers you a chance to look at the face of your “choice” via any type of ultra-sound so you can see just what you’re about to tear to pieces. What kind of idiot provides a woman with that kind of clarity? But hey, Hillary redeemed herself by assuring those so offended by the term “unborn person” (you know, a human child) that the unborn don’t have any constitutional rights anyway. So there.

Camille, Like Hillary, is quite sure that the execution of the unwanted gestating child is supported without restriction under the fourteenth amendment. And Camille does pat her self on the back quite often, proud that she has always been consistent with respect to the sanctity of life, and feels that her support of abortion on demand equals her support for the death penalty of those convicted of heinous crimes. She tells us that she feels that pro-choice Democrats have become “callous and extreme” about abortion. How you can, in the same breath, find that abortion is protected by the fourteenth amendment which gives equal protection to all persons under the law and then equate an innocent unborn person with a convicted murderer is beyond me. And to call others callous in the process. But such is the life of an ardent, courageous “pro-abortion supporter” I guess.

Troubling even more is that she glances over her support for Margaret Sanger, noting only in passing Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s origins promoting eugenics; she never mentions the fact that much of the purification of the gene pool was aimed at blacks. No, Camille became disillusioned over Planned Parenthood when she realized it became a “covert arm of the democrat party.” And leaves it at that. Not because Planned Parenthood and the democrat party are systematically killing unborn not-quite-human-victims, many of them black mind you, but because they are a “covert arm of the democrat party.” Which of course, is news to no one at all.

At least Camille points out that nature oppresses women in far greater ways than men do. But the left doesn’t quite go for biology; see the entry above from Webster’s. In fact, if they can’t find someone to blame, they can’t create more victims. Like Camille, I too consider myself quite libertarian, leaning more conservative. And yes, my own views on abortion frustrate the bejeebus out of everyone. Want to have an abortion? Go ahead. On your own dime. With your own child, not mine. Explain it to your God, or Gaia, or whatever you call your conscience, but leave me out hell out of it. I have no right to tell any woman who is not carrying my child what she has to do with her body. Sorry friends, I have always felt that way. I have no more right to control you than you have to control me. But that’s not good enough for second or third wave feminism. What was once a movement about reproductive rights became sex without consequence; the choice at the front end of the act de-coupled from the consequence of that “choice.” And somehow, you decided the government needs to get me involved. Either I pay for your abortion or pay for your offspring. I got just as sick of the feminist movement over abortion as Camille seems to be. And of course, I’m told I hate women because of it. Camille, you dammed misogynist. It appears that feminism was just a change in how women could fund their victimization due to the burden of pregnancy. Being supported by a man is heinous; having his financial support coerced from him and filtered through the government; a-okay.

It’s interesting to note that she brings up what she feels were the “flimsy and overblown” charges leveled against Clarence Thomas. Interesting in the fact that during the same period, many young men like myself were ardent supporters of equal opportunities for women; even though we were constantly subjected to harangues of how evil men were as we stood should to shoulder with those slinging these arrows. I was concerned for my sisters (biological!) and the future Ms. Messydesk and possible daughters. But I was raised to be considerate of women; yes we were taught to pull out the chairs at the table, open doors, give up our seats on the bus. And more often, I was looked upon with derision for those actions, even to the point of being publically berated on more than one occasion. Maybe it isn’t biology that second and third wavers were struggling with, maybe it was friggin’ manners. Who knows? But it became tedious. I would always be the enemy and they were dammed sure to let me know, no matter how many signs I held up side-by-side with them. Or maybe it was because I expected them to become truly self-sufficient. And called them on it.

To be consistent, Camille should also discuss, not only how feminism misses the point on the biology of women, but also how feminism has declared war on the biology of men. Fatherhood is a joke; a quaint but antiquated social construct. No need for a man to make a child anymore. A strong father figure in the home is a vanishing breed. Any of the adjectives once used to describe the rugged male individual that women used to long for and men wanted to be like were discarded long before the Marlboro man choked out his last cigarette. No, we were now being forced to take sensitivity classes, wear pregnancy suits for a whole day, quizzed by our prospective paramours on whether we are afraid to cry, told to be less introspective and more talkative and for god sakes, take off those sweats and put on some dammed skinny jeans. Emasculation of the American male is really the goal here. This is no longer about equal opportunity, to raise women to their potential. No, the gap between the sexes, regardless of the dictates of biology like muscle mass and bone structures, uteri or prostate glands, could only be diminished by disparaging those traits that made males uniquely, biologically male. From Marlboro man to pajama boy in less than a generation.

But it’s even worse for those runny-nosed little heathens, boys, dealing with that toxic soup of the evil testosterone while they try to sit still in class, dreaming of pulling on that mesmerizing, swaying pony tail at the desk ahead of them. Society now treats them as predators in waiting, busted for a simple hug or stolen kiss on the playground, labeling them as serial sex abusers long before they develop the slightest wisp of pubic hair. Great cottage industries have grow up around diagnosing little boys as damaged little girls who might just be saved if we drug the natural, biological tendencies out of them and exchange their Tonka trucks for Barbie’s dream corvette or pry GI Joe from their hands, replaced by any one of the My Little Ponies. We wonder why children are facing dilemmas about their sexuality in far greater numbers; because we can’t face biology and project our inability to come to grips with it upon those who are currently at that stage in their lives when it has the most emotional and physical impact. Why do we teach little girls to fear and hate little boys and little boys to hate themselves. Go ahead; deny it if it helps you sleep better at night. Maybe you’re courageous too, like Camille.

We’ll never settle the debate over abortion. Unfortunately, we’ll never even agree to disagree. Some of us believe life starts at conception. Others believe life begins when society decides it does. Like maybe when you make it home from the hospital. In any event, feminism has moved to a place where I can no longer recognize why I, as a male, believed in it so strongly when I was younger. I still believe my daughters should have every opportunity to try anything they are capable of. And I also believe that their success should not be predicated on the demonization of the other half of the species. Feminist can deny their biology all they’d like; to each his or her own. But the issue still remains that what I see as the brand of feminism displayed today is nothing more than vitriol, self-loathing and an intense feeling of, maybe a celebration of victimhood. And if abortion is their Holy Grail, we should also note that biology includes death; the death of over 50 million babies aborted since Roe V. Wade. Mom went to Planned Parenthood and only brought back a tee shirt.

So like Camille, I’ve become quite disillusioned with feminism. I will however leave you with one last comment. If you can celebrate the death of your unborn child, then struggling with biology is likely not the only thing we can’t agree to disagree on.

Thanks a bunch Reince; your little performance at the start of Thursday night’s debate surely must have healed the divisions and strife among the faithful of the party; those millions of GOPer’s sitting at home watching, probably hoping for another WWF battle royale. Your equivocation was likely lost on the vast majority too. Still, I seriously doubt that anyone outside of yourself and those handfuls of kingmakers in the party leadership believe a word of what you tried so earnestly to persuade them to swallow. You implored them all to believe that the party will rally around the nominee, whomever that would eventually be. You did fail to mention however, that you’re working like an insidious flesh eating bacteria, trying desperately to damage anyone the party elites do not prefer; so as long as your candidate gets the nomination, you’ll be one hundred percent supportive. Maybe you haven’t heard; you’re done. So is your party. It’s now about open rebellion; are you willing to drive this totally over the cliff, or are you going to listen to the will of the people and accept their final choice? Given the past failures of the party; thumbing their voters in the eye at every turn, it’s lack of leadership and willingness to dismiss the concerns and desires of its own constituents, voters are now willing to go it alone, to stand outside the well-defined, constricting definition of a party to finally claim the power that they have always owned, guaranteed to them by a constitution which the GOP no longer wishes to defend. You, Reince, have created a third party. It will swallow the GOP first; and the democrat party is next.

"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to.."

“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to..”

While voters were coming out in record numbers this year, a real demonstration of the power vested in them by their constitution, GOP leaders were busily trying to find a path to make sure that the party leadership would still ultimately decide who that nominee would be. Will of the people, constitution be dammed. But hey, that’s okay too. It is after all, their party. They can pretty much do what they want. And I assume that being as myopic and narcissistic as they appear, they’ll slit their own throats this year and then turn around and blame the great unwashed for the blood on their own hands. The meeting at Park City Utah wasn’t a strategy session on how to take down the democrat challengers. And with all due respect to the Trump supporters, it wasn’t solely focused on him either. It was an admission by the party elites that they no longer have a brand that is supported by a majority of its members; a desperate attempt to formulate a strategy to regain control over the great unwashed. So if you’re a republican, you need to vote for party loyalty; good for the party. And it’s pretty handy too if they don’t tell you who to vote for but limit your choices. Same result. Makes you want run right out and send in that donation.

Well, at least they have principles that define the party, don’t they. Well, maybe. I haven’t seen them fight for any principles in years, but that’s what they tell us every cycle. The threat is always that “the other party” doesn’t stand for this or that, bedrock principles of the GOP that drive voters to the polls, only to have those principles tossed overboard as soon as the party elites are comfortably ensconced in the warm embrace of superpacs and wall street lobbyists. How obvious can you get? How many true conservatives were at the World Forum on Sea Island Georgia? Think Tim Cook is going to promote republican values? Gee, maybe Arthur Sulzberger was there to fill out a GOP application form. And for goodness sake, could someone please shove that little white board up Karl Rove’s ass?

The most amusing aspect of all this is the reaction from the other side. I have some seriously political friends on the opposite end of the spectrum and they’re poking me daily about how the “repuglicans” are blowing up, a party filled with hate, Nazi’s everyone one of us. All while they support a woman who should have been indicted long ago and a proud socialists who talks about the evils of Washington selling votes for favors even as he promises to rob Peter to pay for the vote of Paul. Go figure. Of course, the difference between a closet communist and a proud socialist is pretty narrow anyway. I think the proper phase is “what difference does it make.”

What the RNC is doing in broad daylight, the DNC has already accomplished; it’s just that the party faithful are either too complacent or too ignorant to notice. And the press, that siren call for all good propagandized democrats, is all too happy to ensure that the DNC party line is adhered to with quite a vengeance, simply by not pointing it out in the first place. Let’s just take a peek at little old Cow Hampshire. Eight of New Hampshire’s 32 delegates are super delegates. Governor Maggie and Senator Jeanne Shaheen are two of those super delegates. After the dust settled in the democrat primary, Bernie Sanders had managed to promise enough free stuff to voters to entice 60 percent of them to vote his way. A landslide for all intents and purposes. The DNC however, doesn’t quite see it that way. Both “Hilarious” and “feel the Bern of government theft” walked away with an equal number of delegates to date, at that time 15 each. Of course, being good little soldiers in the “party of the people,” Maggie and Jeanne are already pledged to Hilarious; their votes cancel out about 9,000 of the primary votes cast for the aging socialist from the far left-wing Sha’ar Ha’amakim kibbutz. Nice, neat, clean, simple. No messy brokered convention to worry about here. Same result; it doesn’t matter who you pick, they don’t really give a shit. After the contentious 1968 democrat convention, the DNC realized that it couldn’t allow its voters to choose the party nominee; this from the party which claims that republicans are trying to keep people from voting. What started with Humphrey in 1968 led to McGovern in 1972 and on to Carter in 1980. In 1982, your totally democratic democrat party settled on the super delegate system and since then the number of these delegates, free to vote however they see fit, has increased steadily from 1984 on.

It would appear then, that Messrs. Trump and Sanders have a real shot at transforming the political landscape albeit not so much for their policies, whether or not you consider them misguided if not outright dangerous. No, they have a chance to shake a complacent electorate out of its infantile stupor, possibly forcing voters to recognize that devotion to a party over country, a handout over your principles, is the quickest route to tyranny and a country that is bankrupt, financially and morally. It’s time to grow up America; this experiment in self-governance rests with you.

Are you finally willing to take responsibly for your own actions instead of voting for who you’re told to vote for, only to whine about the limited, miserable choices you were offered afterwards?

We overthrew one king; why would we allow others to choose our next? Oh yeah; for the good of the party.

Boy, if Trump has done anything positive, it’s that he has peeled back the mud-covered façade of the Great Obsolete Party. Playing by party rules hasn’t really seemed to help their constituents; they’ve held their noses so long to vote for the party that they’re in need of rhinoplasty. Never mind who you like, vote for who we offer. Trust us. Yup, that worked out well in the minds of the voters. Of course, the party establishment treats their constituents like petulant children and are horrified when those same constituents behave like, well, petulant children.

Throwing one hell of a new party....

Throwing one hell of a new party….

What did the party learn from David Brat? Only that you have to destroy the populist candidate quickly, holding that kitten under water as soon as it emerges. They didn’t see Brat coming and lost Eric Cantor and with him went Mr. Rubio’s comprehensive Immigration reform bill, affectionately known as the “gang of eight.” A bill which Rubio has yet to repudiate clearly; well except to continue to support it on radio Telemundo or some such place. So now the long knives are out for Dave Brat; from the GOP of course.

Just vote for good ole’ John McCain. Go ahead, hold your nose and eat that spinach. Fail. Hey here’s Mitt; he’s kind of like spinach, maybe more like Brussel sprouts. Mmm, Mmm, good. Shut up and vote. Except Mitt didn’t want to win at all; his debate style was to get black eyes from Candy Crowley for heaven’s sake. He never laid a hand on the imperial leader. Now, Mitt is back with words of wisdom on how and why voters should dump-the-Trump. Duck for cover Mitt, you’re about to stain your magic undies.

Fearing that a populist just might end their tenuous grip on power, the party establishment went through great pains to enforce a pledge on all of its candidates; even Jeb! the great, who was supposed to have this thing handed to him anyway, signed the pledge that stated in part, “I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.” Yup, put that kitten in the bucket as quick as you can, they thought. Of course, like Brat had done to Cantor, Trump rolled Jeb and is in the process of sending Marco back to the sunshine state where he’ll hopefully join the other millions of retirees.

Mind you, the pledge never said anything about destroying the front runner well before the party nominee is chosen. As always, there’s wiggle room in any deal the establishment of either party makes; especially when it relates to the concerns of those who may just want to choose who they vote for. (Don’t giggle if you’re a democrat; Bernie wasn’t going to win no matter how many states he took from Hilarious; super-duper delegates you know…)

So after years of making empty promises and pushing the “most electable candidate” (read as that candidate most likely to support the status quo), the GOP leadership is now being taken to task by the petulant children they were supposed to represent. And they hate it. And they are willing to destroy the party at any cost to maintain their grip on the connections of power and influence that binds them to big donors, big business and the chamber of commerce who all see the US taxpayer as nothing more than a deep pocket, there for the emptying.

If you vote for Trump, you’re a Nazi. But that’s not the democrat party leading that charge. If you vote for “The Donald,” you’re an idiot. Again, GOP leadership. This from the group that can’t quite figure out what the hell they stand for other than their own self interests. A lot of them are saying that Mr. Trump is clearly not conservative enough. Well Cruz is, and the party has just about destroyed his campaign. You see, someone willing to go to Washington and vote the way his electorate expects him to, is going to cause problems for everyone else. Imagine if everyone was expected to represent their constituents, or at least vote the way the promised they would. (Yeah, I’m thinking of you, Mrs. Ayotte). Then again, I’m not sure that McCain or Mitt were ever that conservative either; both of them were pushed down the throats of conservative voters who were then blamed for their losses because “conservatives and evangelicals stayed home.” Well, if they can’t have Jeb!, they’ll settle for giving us Marco; except Marco can’t win a dammed thing and an awful lot of the rank and file republican voters have seen right through him. And they ain’t eating that spinach this time.

Which brings us back to Trump. What do we do with Trump? Simple, we’ll work to destroy him personally and when we get to the convention, we select the nominee we want the electorate to swallow again. Simple plan, no? And it boils down to math. You may hear them talk about how if candidate x and y drop out, then those votes would end up with Marco and we’d have enough delegates split so that Trump never gets to 1,237; yay, brokered convention where we get to appoint Marco. They never seem to admit that a large number of those voters may very well end up with Trump. Whistling past the graveyard. Of course, they’re quickly realizing that Marco may not even win his home state of Florida; and there’s no way they’d appoint Cruz. Better to keep the non-performers in the race as long as possible so Trump doesn’t have a margin so large at the convention that it causes riots in the streets when they give it away to someone else. And of course, if he’s not the nominee, then they won’t have to stand by the pledge that they bludgeoned him over the head with. It was never meant to apply to them; none of their promises ever do.

And there’s the rub. They’re trying to figure out the appeal of their front runner who for years, and for all intents and purposes, seemed to be pretty darned liberal. It must be something wrong with those dammed voters; idiots, Nazis, misogynists. This is how they are referring to the very same people who they, time and time again, lied to and disappointed. Give us the house and we’ll fix things. Fail. Well, we can’t do it without the senate. Omnibus bill. You can call your voters every name in the book, they’re not coming back. This party is toast. I left years ago. And the rest of the Great Obsolete Party voters don’t really give a dammed if you threaten or insult them or tell them that a vote for Trump is like voting for Hillary. Hell, a vote for McCain was a vote for Obama. And so was a vote for Mitt. This time, they fully intend to vote for whoever they dammed well please. And many of you will eventually pay the price downstream as well. I head that argument today on talk radio; that a Trump presidency will cause losses farther down the local tickets.

Nice argument that one, but that won’t fly either. Voters closer to their legislatures already know who they are and what they stand for. It’s those idiots in the house and the senate who are currently threatening to leave the GOP if the voters choose Trump or Cruz that will need a new home. Ask yourself this; what loss would that be to the Trump supporters? You have consistently voted against the wishes of your constituents, you’re now demeaning them personally for their choice and you somehow expect to curry their favor in the future? You need to make that graceful exit to the Democrat party as soon as possible because even if Trump does not win, a great majority of you will not be re-elected without the help of some very friendly support from the Democrat party and the liberal media.

Kiss this party good-bye. It no longer has any support from its base or middle; that was gone years ago. They are just now starting to flex their muscles and whether they coalescence into a large enough block to topple Hilarious remains to be seen. But whether at their own hands, or whether the party elites blow it up from inside, which is the more likely scenario, this party is forever changed. And if you think that the revolution that we’re seeing in the GOP isn’t happening on the Democrat side, you’re nuts. Ask any Bernie supporter. The media may want to hide it or downplay it. But it’s there. And once democrat voters see that GOP voters have broken their shackles, it won’t be long before they will wake up and realize that they’d like to vote their consciences too.

It all boils down to one simple realization; is it any more risky to vote for someone new, someone strange and different who just might end up disappointing you, or should you continue to vote for those who have consistently shown their willingness to do so?

So is the IPhone the cell phone of choice for terrorists? Could be. Is it also the phone of choice for those who want freedom and protection from an ever encroaching government? Yes, very likely. It’s also the phone of choice for kids who like to take their own images and splash them all over social media, the choice for those who don’t even remotely think about their privacy and the choice for many companies like mine who assign them to you without asking you your preference. Am I a Luddite because I only wanted a phone that was just a dammed phone? Jeez, I’m lucky if I can even see the numbers on the screen, let alone text or read exhilarating Facebook posts about someone’s totally unique and personally defining “dark chocolate melted truffle mocha espresso with chocolate sprinkles” from the Starbucks they just visited five minutes ago. Yay, look at me; I can spend four dollars and fifteen cents on a cup of coffee. I don’t want the government to find out though; just my followers on twitter.

Tool of a terrorist or found on a victim?

Tool of a terrorist or found on a victim?

I’m quite sure that Apple has done this before. And I’m quite sure that despite their marketing appeal they already have a way to crack Syed Farook’s phone. I trust Apple no farther than I trust this over reaching government. Sorry Tim ol’ boy, you ain’t my hero. Just keep pumping out these overpriced toys made with off shore slave labor so that the narcissistic selfie crowd can have a safe place to keep pictures of their Anthony Weiner.

It could very well end up that data in Farook’s phone is pointing to some greater threat, an armed cell operating somewhere near San Bernardino, or Washington, or heaven forbid, some Starbucks location loaded with, hey, multiple victims clutching their very own protected IPhone, using Apple-pay to purchase the very self-affirming Latte Macchiato that they need to show to the world. Isn’t that the definition of irony, or is it a poor marketing program? Hey, let’s make it easier for some of our customers to blow some of our other customers to pieces. I think they called that “planned obsolescence.” Maybe. One would assume that either of these two market segments would have a low repeat-purchase-likelihood.

Not quite the only ironies here. If you can’t wrap your head around that one, try these; the very same people who transmit their latest “duck-lipped” image or selfies of their oddly misshaped, silicon plumped naughty bits are screaming about privacy rights? Here’s a concept. Privacy starts with you keeping things private. Please. Those who wish for “big government” are pretty incensed that the Justice Department feels it can force a private company to produce a product or service against its wishes. How’s that? If you support the government deciding what light bulb I have to buy, what health care program I must sign up for, what abortion I need to fund or even stipulate that I have to have a friggin’ Al Gore low-flow crapper in the house, well you’re just being a little disingenuous. Or stupid, take your pick. This is the next logical extension of the power of the big brother utopia that you’ve been clamoring for. Shut up and give us your password.

Of course, it’s no different on the other side. You can’t say that you’re for a limited government, and then state that that “limited government” has the power to coerce a company to give away the privacy of its customers. Sorry, incongruous.

I’m pretty certain that Apple can open this phone if it hasn’t already figured out how. From this point on, it’s all marketing optics. I’m also pretty darn certain that the government already has transcripts of all the calls made with this device. Chances are, they obtained this data illegally anyway and are looking for some way to make said data acceptable in court via Apple. Can’t very well walk into court and say “hey, we were illegally wiretapping this phone, no warrant, no suspicions but thought we’d enter this into evidence anyway. Whaddya say judge?”

I fall squarely on the side of the American people here. The government can go take a flying leap. I’d like to toast every terrorist cell in the country, but I’m not willing to trade my rights, your rights or any one else’s rights to do so. And I’m no fan of Apple here; don’t let them fool you. It’s not like they are protecting anything but their bottom line. Pretty much as they should be. Tim Cook may think the high road is going to go a long way for goodwill here, but I think there’s a pretty good chance that they’re screwed either way. Some will see them as supporting radical terrorists; some will see them battling a tyrannical government.

And some like me, will look at both the government and Apple and realize that they are two sides of the same coin; if you think that neither one of them doesn’t have pictures of your baby mama’s pumpkin sized butt, you’re sadly mistaken.

Gotta hang up now; time to finish my pumpkin spiced latte. You can see it on Facebook.


Call ended…

So it would appear, at least according to Madam Albright, a great number of the women in New Hampshire went straight to hell last night. In hell and feeling the Bern, no doubt. Let’s do some very simple math; the aging socialist got sixty percent of the democrat vote last night; if we assume for the sake of brevity that half of those voting were women, well, that means that thirty percent of all of the women who voted the democrat ticket are now living in the zip code of Mephistopheles. And all this apparently, to meet some really hot hipster dudes who are also feeling the burn.

Listen closely and you'll hear Connie singing "where the boys are."

Listen closely and you’ll hear Connie singing “where the boys are.”

Puzzling to say the least; no, not the appeal of any one campaign or another. No, from the perspective of a man, I wonder just what the hell the message of feminism truly is. I can’t pin it down, but at least I can take comfort in the fact that it’s not just me; old Gloria and Madeline don’t seem to have it pegged either. I used to think that is was a rebuke of everything man-hood. At least that’s how it used to appear. Women wanted to be everything a man was; well at least all of the things that they thought were positive. They hated men because according to feminists, we “think with our dicks.” Fast forward. Now it’s important to think with your vagina. Used to be that feminists believed that sexualizing women was the worst trait in men. Fast forward. Now you can’t watch any one of the young ex-Disney performers without them showing off their assets. But that’s celebrated as empowerment. Honest ladies, I don’t peek though. So just who are they displaying their duck lips and enhanced pumpkin-shaped derrieres for? Strippers used to be denigrated by feminists. Now they give them Oscars and Grammy’s. Go figure.

If it’s all so confusing for the ladies, they should take a look at the men in their lives. Or if they don’t have a man, maybe it’s because we’re often not quite sure what you expect of us. Or even if you want us around at all. After all, we’re just as useless as bicycles to a fish. Well except for that “dying on foreign lands” thingy, and running into burning buildings and spiders in the tub. This goes beyond the “what do women want” meme. Want to be in combat? Okay, as long as you don’t have to meet those stringent requirements. Same goes for being a fireman or a cop. Then you’re all in. if I hadn’t registered for the draft, I wouldn’t have been allowed to get those wonderful college loans that Bernie’s supporters don’t want to have to pay. Oddly, my sister never had the same requirement. (Poor thing was just as saddled with them as all the rest of us..) Time to sign up for the draft, ladies. All things being equal and all.

Was feminism about their strength, their possibilities and the opportunities that women wanted? Why would women be told that a man in their life was that last thing they should need; that women can and should take care of themselves. Heaven forbid you try to pay for a lady’s dinner; how patronizing. Assuming she needs to be taken care of? Misogynist asshole. Heaven forbid you try not to pay for her abortion. Wait, what? Women don’t need a man to take care of them; they only need government to do so. Ah, women never said they don’t need a daddy. They just prefer a nameless faceless one, chosen by other women who get to define, randomly and inconsistently, just what the hell it means to be a woman. Literally. Just ask Glamour. They have it all figured out. Except I guess, that part about voting with your vagina.

Maybe it was all misread on my part. Why in the world would women want to become more like us, more like the dreaded man, what they had despised so much? After all, once you became that which you hated, would self-hate be far behind? Or was self-hate what drove you in that direction in the first place?

Feminism was merely a ploy to separate the sexes from one another in an attempt to build a voting coalition. Period. Go ahead and argue that point all you want, but I and a lot of other men my age spent most of our lives on the receiving end of hate directed towards our gender, often times for things we had never done. Well, I am truly sorry however, for giving you my seat on the bus and opening that door for you. My bad. Misandry is acceptable as a political tool; it does nothing as far as human relations between the sexes. But that’s okay, you don’t need us anyway. You’ve pretty much made that abundantly clear. Well, you need some of us, at least sometimes. You’re certainly willing to give ol’ billy-boy a sloppy knob if he promises to vote the way you want him to. Trading sexual favors? Thought that was demeaning. Feminism is all about situational ethics. Shit, now I get it. That’s why you can blindly support a woman who takes large sums of money from governments willing to give a woman hundreds of lashes for showing her ankle. A woman who giggles about setting free the rapist of a thirteen year old girl. A woman who hides behind the feminism that’s supposed to unite all the uteri of the world, claiming that every woman has the right to be believed, unless of course she’s attacked by one of those preferred members of the replacement daddy-class whom feminism seeks to marry you to.

Sorry, but I’m no fan of socialism; learn your history and maybe you’ll figure out why. Ponder for a minute why people are dying to cross over our borders to get here, but for the last hundred years or so, they were being shot trying to cross their own borders to escape socialism. No matter, vote your conscience. Your own individual conscience, not the collective conscience handed down from on-high by people who view you as nothing more than a set of reproductive organs that can be persuaded to move as an indistinguishable herd. At least I’m very pleased at all the young ladies, old ladies, skinny ladies, chubby ladies, ladies rich, poor and maybe a few not-quite ladies who felt the Bern last night. They spit in the eye of the old feminist guard who have done nothing but teach them to despise men and might very well have reclaimed what had originally appealed to us all about feminism; the individuality of the American woman, her independence, her strength and her will. And who knows, they probably met a few nice guys too.

Meanwhile, somewhere in a campaign office in snowy New Hampshire, someone is wondering just what in hell happened…

Enter your email address and I'll let you know when I post!

Join 263 other followers

hey, pick a topic

Other stuff you gotta see…

Chicks On The Right

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

PJ Media

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

The Gateway Pundit

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

Just another site


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers